Wikipedia : In the news/Candidates/October 2020

Comment. Article is currently a stub (with exactly two sentences). Has to be expanded to at-least a start class article before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still a stub. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment stale. Still a stub. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Belarusian protests[edit]

Support UNDUE tag, multiple sourcing issues noted in the infobox, far too granular coverage for an encyclopedia, antagonistic edit history. I wouldn't send it to AfD, but neither would I want to keep it on the Main Page.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal Hardly any media attention, and a 100 women on Wednesday and a handicapped rally yesterday can hardly be qualified as massive protest. KittenKlub (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support about time. The level of the protests has died down, and a few minor protests do not count as a major protest. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Protests are still ongoing, and should stay per the rationale from previous weeks. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Orbitalbuzzsaw. We won't remove the protest on mainpage until they remove Lukashenko. They are stil going currently --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not how ongoing works. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how ongoing works. They might not even remove Lukashenko, and if they do, it'll take months. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Ping Hey, you're right.
Slight Support Protests have entered a bit of a stalemate, and news coverage has certainly died down (save for talk of the stalemate and Apple Censorship) though i say give it a few days and we'll see what happens. Gex4pls (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal - per nom, who makes a strong case. I did a web search on my own and I'm not seeing any substantial news coverage of major new protests. Time to remove this from Ongoing. Jusdafax (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Not really in the news any more. — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – Scant coverage lately, but given the country's politiscape this topic could return anytime. – Sca (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The protests have been on the main page longer than even the George Floyd protests. The protests have really died down and I don’t see Lukashenko leaving office anytime soon. This has already been nominated twice for deletion, and I think that it’s time has passed. The Image Editor (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal the "protests" became a Sunday afternoon outing months ago, long past time to come down --LaserLegs (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless this sees a sudden resurgence, it is not ongoing/in the news. The Thai protests are but no one seems to have nominated that. Gotitbro (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from Ongoing. Spencer^T•C 15:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-removal oppose per the re-escalation of the protests on 18 October. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Nguyễn Văn Man[edit]

Oppose Stub, too short for RD. And are there any English-language sources for his death. Gotitbro (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Expanded to include his military career. Not well-known in English-speaking countries. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are English language Vietnamese newspapers/sources as well? Which should uave covered this. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Updated with English sources. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems ok enough, though I'd rather his military career info be moved from the intro to the career section, but thats not too big of a problem. Gex4pls (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone knowledgeable about the topic take a pass at a round of thorough copy-edits on this article? Ktin (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Went through and copyedited. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping I think this is ready to be posted. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 02:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Jole Santelli[edit]

Oppose Somewhat short for RD, can be expanded from itwiki. English-language sources about her death would be good as well. Gotitbro (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree with the above comment. In addition, this needs to be expanded to meet the 'Spencer Test'. What did the subject do as a politician? Any major policies advanced? i.e. over and above just a listing of positions. Ktin (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Template:U. Article is still a resume-like list of her posts, and also has an outstanding citation-needed tag. Yoninah (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bhanu Athaiya[edit]

Comment Would support when filmography is sourced, otherwise mostly fine. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Source has been updated. Seems like all the movies are covered by that reference. If you spot any missing -- feel free to add the Template:Cn tag. But, on a cursory glance -- seems sourced. Ktin (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks well written and well sourced. Gex4pls (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good and ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 20:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Pardon the intrusion. This is ready to be posted to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - the list of people she's worked with in the lead section isn't cited. I suppose if we click through all the films we might find those names, but better to have it explicit. — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, thanks for that tag. This is done. I also took this chance to make a small expansion on the lede. This should be good now. Ktin (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. With thanks to Ktin for resolving the issues. — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) President of Kyrgyzstan resigns[edit]

This would be ITNR once we know who the successor will be. Maybe it should be anyway since someone has to take over. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the basic law, the speaker is acting prez. Protests are still going on today calling for dissolution of parliament and his resignation though.195.250.80.226 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Perhaps post it "amidst protests" with the protest link below.195.250.80.226 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support per ITNR. The blurb can amended if successor is confirmed. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITNR This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per 331dot. Tensa Februari (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. The update consists of only one sentence and, given the detailed information in the preceding two paragraphs, it will benefit from adding one or two more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But maybe include his successor in the blurb, when the details come out. Gex4pls (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We probably won't know the name of his successor until a presidential election takes place and the name of the acting president is not really newsworthy.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is noteworthy enough on it's own i guess. Gex4pls (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wait~~ – for a bit more info in the update. Thin. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle (ITNR) but wait until a little more information is available and added to the relevant articles before posting. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the president is a powerless figure head his resignation is meaningless. The Prime Minister of Kyrgyzstan has the authority and whose recent replacement is what we should have blurbed if not for the baffling rules around "Head of State" here --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an accurate description of how the government of Kyrgyzstan works. They did place more power into the parliament in 2010, but the President is still above the Prime Minister, just not by as much as he was before the 2010 constitutional referendum. It's totally inaccurate to say that he's a powerless figure. He has most of the same authorities as the US president: he the final say over if legislation gets signed into law, he has the commander in chief power, he controls foreign policy, etc. He even appoints the Prime Minister. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II has all those same powers, yet everyone acknowledges she's a figurehead in the UK, with the PM having the real power. What's the difference? Of course, there's no doubt that if the Queen were to abdicate it would get posted, but that is because of constitutional monarchy being a rule for life situation. Kingsif (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a large difference: the Queen has de jure but not de facto power, the president has de jure and de facto power. It's widely accepted that the Queen is a seemingly apolitical symbolic figurehead who would never de facto exercise her de jure powers. This is not true of the President of Kyrgyzstan, who is directly elected every six years and actually seeks to fulfill their campaign promises and move the country in a certain direction according to their political party's ideology. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter anyway, the old PM quit too!^[4] Gex4pls (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the Queen abdicated, that would be news This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I would gravitate towards LaserLegs if it was a death or change of head of state but the fact that he resigned due to election protests is significant. Gotitbro (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The PM has resigned now, a troika of events events along with the protests (thanks Template:U), this is the perfect nom. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but have it be combined with the protests as a double-bold blurb. Move the protest article out of ongoing for now - both are sufficient for MP. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The current PM has now declared himself acting president, so I've updated the blurb. Brandmeister^talk 07:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very fluid situation, which will probably require the blurb to be changed regularly. It has already been changed (twice?) since the nomination was made. I think Ongoing is still the right place for this, but if we encounter the ITNR situation then it should go up immediately.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is rare for items to go straight to Ongoing, something you seem to have proposed twice recently. Usually if it's significant enough to merit Ongoing, then we'd blurb it first and then move it into the Ongoing section once it rolls off the main page. — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb – Now that an interim PM, Sadyr Japarov, has grasped the reins. Prefer Alt1.– Sca (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Spencer^T•C 15:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's Sadyr Japarov. Change the spelling. Other than that, post-posting support. 1779Days (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Akkitham[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 14 Template:Cob

Support Looks good would like to see more about his literary work in the lead than just a list of awards though. Gotitbro (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Lede has been updated. Looks good now. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one? Else, I think this is ready to go. Ktin (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. Everything is there, but the article needs a clean-up. I'd suggest: (i) the authography needs to be weeded out to include significant works only and (ii) the italic formatting on the quotations should be removed. In addition, if he really was referred to simply as "Akkitham" the article should probably be moved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Template:U. I see that Template:U fixed the italics formatting. Regarding bibliography, I would suggest that we leave all of it there, since they are all well cited, and any attempts to trim that down would be subjective. Re: Akkitham vs Akkitham Achuthan Namboothri, I was the one who suggested trimming this to Akkhitham if that creates whitespace on the ITNRD carousel (if that opens up space for an additional RD). Looking at the coverage, it does appear that a significant amount of coverage is for his full name i.e. Akkitham Achuthan Namboothiri. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Pardon the intrusion. This is ready to be posted to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. I do share Brigade Piron's concern about the length of the bibliography - having all those entries doesn't really help the reader understand the subject. But it's good enough for ITN I'd say, so posted. — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 14[edit]

(Closed) RD: Rhonda Fleming[edit]

Support. Gave a quick look. Seems well referenced and clean. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. However, Template:U, we might have a problem in that the ITNRD carousel has already moved on to October 15, and soon will be on 16. Ktin (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U Her death was announced only on Oct. 17. So, I don't know exactly how it works.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 03:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Tagging Template:U to help check and for appropriate actions. Ktin (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as article is in decent shape, but the possibility of this being stale could nullify my support. Gex4pls (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sadly, stale. Two places still need citations. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 22:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Fred Dean[edit]

Support The article is big enough and well referenced. It's a shame that the only picture is his shirt without the player inside, but images are often hard to get. KittenKlub (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Reid[edit]

Support Yes everything seems sourced and ok for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All sourcing in place, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herbert Kretzmer[edit]

Support, looks good to me, just please move (or copy) the Aznavour ref to the body, to not make that one decisive bit look unsourced ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:S support - Everything has been taken care of now. A good article that is ready to be posted. Good job Template:U. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Thanks for spotting that! In this edit that I tagged as "minor", I somehow removed the refs for that paragraph. They've now been restored. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 19:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: End SARS protests[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 13 Template:Cob

Support for Blurb Interesting and definitely ITN worthy. Don't have time to look over the article but if that's all good I support This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section heading and article title made me think this was about COVID :/. Not sure about the nom but 10 people getting killed does lend credence to the significance of the protests though the article lead is singularly focused on the online/social media aspect of it, that needs some work. Some references above in the media about the protests/killings would be nice as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article (including the lead) also makes it seem that the social media campaign only emerged this October while it has been going for some time as far back as 2018. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend changing the name to "Nigerian Protests" and you could detail about what is being protested in the blurb. Gex4pls (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Unsee on major RS sites (except maybe Al Jazeera). Please keep in mind WP:NOR. – Sca (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has 100 sources, of which majority must be reliable. What WP:NOR are you smoking? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Must" – ?? — Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Blurb Seen a few articles, though less in US probably because of the elections. Its definitely important.Albertaont (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb not crazy about the proseline, but significance is certainly there. Although I understand the potential for confusion, we should stick with End SARS. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem if a blurb is posted but definitely confusing if directly linking in Ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb – This 3,500-word list of protests in Nigeria seems essentially parochial in import, lacking wider significance. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong protests were "parochial in import, lacking wider significance", and we posted those This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sca knows the rules, he just doesn't care. This constant refrain of his has long since become disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, NPA! – Sca (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough all of you. Let's be civil, comment on the article not the user, and not shout. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how "parochial in import" is not opposing "an item because the event is only relating to a single country." GreatCaesarsGhost 20:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that sca was trying to point out the large number of protests currently ITN, which is certainly odd, but not a reason for disqualification, especially with the recent deaths. Gex4pls (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. This certainly is ITN-worthy. The article could benefit from being transformed into better prose but is quite well sourced. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted. I haven't seen a reliable source for the number of deaths so haven't included this in the blurb yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Straight to Ongoing I have been looking over this nomination and related news for a couple of days. The blurb as written doesn't convey the situation well, and I can't think of a better one that would. Briefly, the blurb implies that SARS is waiting to be disbanded (it already is), that the protests are about SARS (rather than police brutality or socio-economic reason, per the protestors during the last days), and that "protests" are alone are notable (they are not; the deaths were the motivating factor for nom and posting). The blurb as written is misleading, but a simple link to the broader description of events would fix that.130.233.2.170 (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP-user's preceding post – more appropriate to Ongoing. Not spot news, overall. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 13[edit]

(Posted) RD: Conchata Ferrell[edit]

Comment Needs a few refs in the body of the article (tagged) and entire filmography and awards sections are uncited. Ping if fixed and I will support JW 1961 Talk 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, Done! All citations completed! Looks good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

changing to Support, good job on turning around this article Template:U, looks ready for RD now JW 1961 Talk 19:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~For now per above. Gotitbro (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Template:U, Done! All citations completed! Looks good to go. Ktin (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fixed the citations in the body and the awards section; ~~Fixed half of the filmography section. Might require someone else to give it one more shot. I think this is getting there.~~ DONE! All citations completed. Ktin (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article looks fine and ready to go. KittenKlub (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Tropical Storm Linfa and Nangka[edit]

Wait If it's so significant, why isn't there a main article for the storm? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the draft stage right now. Here is the draft. I didn't feel comfortable to nominate a draft in the "Article" section. Once it is moved to article space, I will change article nominated to the main article. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently submitted to Afc. Should a vote happen to bypass the Afc and move it to Article space as the draft currently would probably pass Afc. More information will also be added as the storm is still on going, so the Afc process will just stall it (And will be weird for the ITN nomination)? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The CNN source says that the deaths are caused by monsoonal flooding, not just Nangka or Linfa. 40 deaths is a lot of people dead. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – On Tuesday absent from most Eng.-lang RS sites, i.e. not in the news as we know it. – Sca (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Still a disaster, absent from English news but present in Vietnamese, Chinese, Thai, Lao, and possibly Japanese news. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neighboring countries are affected as well perhaps that too should be mentioned in the blurb (if the damage there is significant as well). Gotitbro (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping changed to Southeast Asia. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Enhanced flooding" – ?? — Sca (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would an article of the monsoonal floods be better for the target article than having two tropical cyclones articles? INeedSupport ^😷 13:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Changed to only the two TCs, since news say that the TCs are different from the monsoonal flooding. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Oppose ~~literally the same as a normal tropical storm. Same as why Hurricane Delta failed.~~ On 2nd thought, realized this is worse then normal. Still, Hurricane Earl of 2016 didn't make the news and killed 94 people.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many storms, including Cyclone Ianos, Hurricane Leslie, and more made ITN even though it killed less. This now killed 53 people, which is a lot and why this should be posted. Saying Earl wasn't posted so this wasn't posted is WP:POINT. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. However, I don't want to add a currently active storm. However, i will be ok with Linfa. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support large loss of life from a weather event, definitely a support. Though, based on the comments above, the articles may not be up to ITN standards. Gex4pls (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability due to the loss of life, no strong opinions on the article quality. At this time, the biggest quality issue seems to be that the target articles are a little thin, but they're not stubs and they appear to be well-sourced. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Carlton Chapman[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 12 Template:Cob

Support. RIP. Article looks clean. Start class biography. ~~I will work on the citations for a bit. Should be ready soon.~~ Didn't require too many updates. Would be nice to add information of his early life outside of his football career. But, with or without that, the article meets expectations for homepage / RD and should be good to go. Ktin (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks ready to go. Everything sourced. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD passable though info on early/personal life and education would be good as well. Gotitbro (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 12[edit]

(Posted) RD: Jacinda Barclay[edit]

Template:Strike Support Template:Strike Cleaned up, definitely RD ready.Gex4pls (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What stuff is where it shouldn't be? Her death is under the personal life section. Step hen 23:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strike

Gex4pls (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has been updated and is well referenced. JennyOz (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jon Gibson[edit]

Support Nice small article. Well referenced. KittenKlub (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Short, but what is there is well referenced and page is suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Roberta McCain[edit]

Support This looks a well sourced, suitable article for RD JW 1961 Talk 20:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Her notability seems to be almost entirely premised on her being the wife/mother/grandmother of notable figures. BD2412 T 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, a 2014 AfD closed as keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying she's not notable, I just wonder whether she's RD notable. We have tons of state legislature members and one-appearance Olympians who don't rate RD inclusion. BD2412 T 20:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no difference between "notable" and "RD notable". Any living being with a Wiki article is eligible for RD, including state legislators and one-appearance Olympians. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a factor in RD nominations. To paraphrase what Muboshgu already said, if an individual is notable enough that they have a Wikipedia article at all, they are notable enough for RD — they don't even necessarily need to be a human (e.g. Grumpy cat was posted). The only factor is the quality of the article, unless there's good reason to believe that the article ought to be deleted due to a lack of notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish the article focused more on her own actions. I expanded the lead and a section to try to show her role. TJMSmith (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I looked over the article when the news broke and didn't see any barriers for an RD posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with TJMSmith, article doesn't say much about her. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, her longevity and high profile during the 2008 US Presidential election add to her notability, if it matters. Ryan Reeder (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support well-sourced, no glaring issues. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support The article is fine and a very interesting life. Gotitbro (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Kyrgyzstan protests[edit]

Comment – Does seem to have slipped below the radar lately, but might be wise to wait a bit longer. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping That would be the case fore large protests such as Belarus, but with this one - no updates since October 10. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Two days is too short a time frame to consider making changes to Ongoing status. If by Wednesday or so there's still nothing new, then we can reconsider. --Jayron 32 13:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. – Sca (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The government literally surrendered to the protesters. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm...no, they didn't.Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Removal, add to ITN there appears to be a change of power, as this is looking more like a coup than protests. The new prime minister^[5], as well as the old one being arrested^[6] should easily be newsworthy, though we should probably still wait a bit for further development. Gex4pls (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal – Still going on. [20] [21] – Sca (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal per Sca's sources. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal I don't know why I'm bothering, but quoting directly from the guidelines "the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information" and "articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening". This makes Template:U's links above interesting but worthless for this discussion since the actual article we have featured in the box hasn't been updated in 3 days and the older updates which are present are terrible one-liners. If the guidelines matter at all, if this discussion is anything other than a vote count, then this turd of an article will come down out of the box. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Said guidelines do not specify how long an article can go without being updated for it to fail the "regularly updated" criteria, but removing an item from ongoing for going 2 days is nonsensical. This proposal to remove it is itself going to last longer than that. We would've been removing and re-adding the Hong Kong protests two or three times a week if that was the line we were using to decide than an article is no longer up to date. We're already aware that no shortage of new news is available (which is itself surprising considering that Kyrgystan isn't exactly a place that English language outlets tend to talk about), so it's more than possible for any editor to add more information to the article right now, in which case this entire discussion would be irrelevant, and every support vote would be moot. Wait a little longer than 2 days next time. I shouldn't need to say this, but if it was a "turd of an article" it wouldn't have been added in the first place due to quality issues, of which there are none. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Ping If you want this article to stay, then you may want to update the article with Sca's links. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - If no one else will then I'll do it today, but bear in mind that the protests themselves and the article documenting them is only one week old. The subject itself hasn't even existed long enough for it to make any sense to decry how outdated the article supposedly is. The protests started eight days ago, the article was updated a couple of days ago, and we're already discussing the timeliness? After I add new material to the article, please kindly consider self-closing the thread, and please don't start another one two or three days later. These sorts of hasty removal nominations unnecessarily take up people's time and should be considered disruptive; this is why I personally believe that editors shouldn't propose removing content unless they personally have attempted to fix it, and this goes for everything from ongoing removal nominations to deletion nominations. In other words, if you diagnose the problem, please try to solve it before burdening someone else with it. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Here is the thing about that. I'm WP:NOTREQUIRED to fix the article. I don't give a damn about Kyrgyzstan. I couldn't even find Kyrgyzstan on a map until I looked it up. I do care about featuring poor quality or outdated content on the "in the news section". You're written more words at this removal nom than have been added to the target article in the last week. If you believe the article should remain then you should update it per the guidelines. Three days without an update, and the previous four days with poor quality one-liner updates do not satisfy the update or quality requirements and the article in it's present state should not be featured at ITN. As for closing, no, that's absurd, this nom will expire off in 6 days when we can try again. If you've a problem with the guidelines, head over to WT:ITN and propose a change, and if you have a problem with my conduct, head on over to WP:ANI where I'd be happy to discuss it. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOTREQUIRED might not be the policy you wanted to link to there, because it reads "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians.", which is exactly why I linked to WP:SOFIXIT - because far too often, including right now, editors have demanded that I do what they won't. You don't need to tell me that I should update it after I've already started making changes to the article, but it's editors like you that are quick to use unnecessarily harsh tones in situations like this that really don't need to be heated that have driven me away from this website. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly, I'm focused on improving the project by not featuring poor quality articles, and you're demanding that others fix it. I'm glad we agree, and thanks for contributing nothing else to this discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Economics[edit]

Support let’s get Nobel week over with This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, per nominator, both articles need work. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Robert Wilson is fixable, however Paul Milgrom needs a lot of trimming from knowledgeable editors. KittenKlub (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, article has several yellow tags. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on concept, oppose on quality, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just left a note at WP:ECONOMICS about these articles. Perhaps someone will have the time to do an overhaul. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An image of Wilson should definitely be there when this is posted. Gotitbro (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt these articles are far more developed that the typical Nobel winners and this seems to be held against them because they don't have citations to all the details that have been added a longer time ago. It's not like the existing information is controversial, and we all know if these two were NOT white males they would get immediate attention. Strange to see this kind of bias in ITN to the point they will likely not end up being posted at all. 2601:602:9200:1310:EC42:9B44:464D:125D (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol bias in ITN didn't get this item posted? We posted 5 other Nobel items with "white males" this past year, and have posted the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics winners in previous years (including multiple white males) because those articles were improved to meet the article quality standard at ITN. Referencing biographies is a chronic issue for many nominated items here, including Nobels as well as RD items, and this is definitely not anything new. Spencer^T•C 23:08, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping Stale? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, ~~I think Robert B. Wilson article should be ready relatively easily.~~ Edited Wilson's article and seems good. If someone can partner on the Paul Milgrom article, we can give it a shot. Ktin (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted with only the Wilson article bolded. Spencer^T•C 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 NBA Finals[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 11 Template:Cob

Support, looks good. I'm also talking about the game too. Albertaont (talk) 02:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITN/R, looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Recap of clinching game has been added.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: article looks like it's in good shape. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 05:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Long live the Finals MVP Howard the Duck (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And GOAT.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the caption to "MVP and GOAT LeBron James..." Howard the Duck (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 11[edit]

(Stale) RD: Thomas Atcitty[edit]

Looks well sourced and just about detailed enough — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ Insufficient depth of coverage. Despite a legislative career that went over a decade, there is only one sentence about what Atcitty did in that role. Spencer^T•C 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re From what I found he was an unimportant member in a safe district that never faced real opposition. His main service was just voting on bills in the Consumer and Public Affairs committee. However, I did add another sentence about his serve as co-chairman of the Democratic caucus. Jon698 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re What is your opinion on the article now? Jon698 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from issues with this likely being stale now, the article honestly doesn't have enough depth. This tends to be a frequent issue with many local politician articles nominated to RD. I'll strike my weak oppose but I don't think the article meets minimum standards. Some searching shows that there's more information available about his role at Navajo Community College that was apparently pretty controversial and that there were student protests; he also testified before Congress as president during his role as president there. Spencer^T•C 21:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joe Morgan[edit]

Slight Support Probably needs to be trimmed and sourced a bit, but seems ok enough. Gex4pls (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~A couple of more refs are needed, but it's coming along fine.~~ The article looks fine now KittenKlub (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - significant figure in baseball. Limited referencing re broadcasting career has been improved. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 19:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is decent. Marking as Ready. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work on this article. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Clearly ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 01:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Stale) RD: Margaret Nolan[edit]

Oppose Needs more sources. Isn't it a bit late? The oldest RDs have deaths dated to October 8. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, her death was only reported on the 11th; when there is clear media delay in the death's reporting like this, we go on when the media first covered it. --Masem (t) 14:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, but the sourcing issues still need to be resolved. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - whatever the reason for the delay in reporting, it is my concern that it is too late now. The filmography is also entirely unsourced. Nevertheless, RIP Ms. Nolan. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think the article is ready for posting. Bingo! Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the filmography remains unsourced, it should be ok after that is fixed JW 1961 Talk 20:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support when article is ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Filmography now referenced; looks ready to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the three citations added to the section generally only cover a small fraction of the credits claimed on the page. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And her website is not the best independent source for her credits. Yoninah (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Stale) RD: Tom Kennedy (television host)[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 10 Template:Cob

Oppose again, sourcing issues. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, I don't think IMDB is an acceptable source either. Gex4pls (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many citations needed. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 10[edit]

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Adil Khan[edit]

Comment I think the prominent boxed Twitter quote makes this page look awkward, suggest its removal as there are surely some more reliable sources that could be added in the normal fashion. JW 1961 Talk 22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Removed.~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support, looks good for RD now JW 1961 Talk 06:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Simple article but looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In the lead, "reportedly seen as an influential scholar" seems a bit iffy for Main Page promotion. – Sca (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage related to scholarly activities/publications; more detail is needed. Spencer^T•C 15:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this article is good to go despite a lower-than-usual depth of coverage of scholarly activities or publications. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sources are calling him Maulana not Muhammad. Is that a middle name or something? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I've already added sources where he is named with his complete, full and common name. Maulana Adil Khan would be equivalent to saying Mufti Taqi Usmani, which is actually Muhammad Taqi Usmani. Thanks ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I created the article and am looking for each and every offline source to expand it more. I was myself noticing that the twitter box is looking awkward which has been removed now. Good coverage as of now. Thank you! ─ The Aafī (^talk) 05:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted but I'm going to get in trouble for this, because officially this is now stale — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) French Open[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 9 Template:Cob

Comment. Article is coming along good. Nice job. Should be ready to support once the Sunday event is completed. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Was about to nominate this myself, though an hour too late. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you can be "conominator" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Template:U in advance to be prepared to create a composite image once the winner is known :) Ktin (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced earlier to see the state of the men's finale, but I have no idea if we know who the two finalists are, as if we know that now I can prep both images. --Masem (t) 00:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U The finalists are Djokovic and Nadal.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 00:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have images ready to go, pending winner of mens. Which order do we usually announced, mens then womens or reverse? --Masem (t) 01:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, ready for your upload. Nadal just won the finals. Ktin (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to image prot after I finish this edit. --Masem (t) 16:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as with the US Open weeks ago, and the article is overall in good shape. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't the bolded article be the Women's Single one? Also the 2020 article (currently bolded one) reads in present tense which appears incorrect to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The bolded article should be the French Open Template:U, since now both Men and Women results are out.~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support either blurb - the articles are in good shape and listing this meets the ITN purpose of helping readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news: Iga Świątek is #3 on Topviews and Rafael Nadal is #41 for 10/10 [22]. I'd suggest Iga Świątek/Rafael Nadal be the bolded article(s) because those seem to be the pages most readers are looking for. Le v!v ich 00:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commentaire - marquage comme prêt. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no narrative whatsoever on the men's singles and a sentence on the women's. Step hen 02:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I will be adding prose to all events tomorrow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Insufficient prose for men's and women's singles sections.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are updated now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very scant prose about the highlighted events in the target articles. I know there are spinoff articles, but we need a better synopsis in the main article. --Jayron 32 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:U, Template:U, and Template:U, prose summaries have been added for men's and women's singles. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the other events? Stephen 10:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my above oppose. I'm ambivalent if events not in the blurb should have at least a sentence of sourced prose or not.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now. Thanks! --Jayron 32 15:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sufficient prose, looks good to go.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Women's doubles, wheelchair events and boys/girls sections all lack prose. — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added a summary of the men's wheelchair, will try to do more later if nobody else gets the chance! — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Template:U, Template:U, Template:U, sourced prose has been added to all events. Hopefully this should be good to go. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 04:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 9[edit]

(Posted) RD: Vijay[edit]

Support Barebones but RD passable. Though I would like to see more on early life (like education) and his career move (shift to Bangalore) and film industry choice (he was Telugu but mostly made Kannada films). His exact birth date and themes and influences in films would be another point of addition. Gotitbro (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article satisfactory for RD JW 1961 Talk 19:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Dwyer[edit]

Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one. Article looks close to ready for homepage / RD.Ktin (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – looks like it meets the criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks ready. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one looks good to go JW 1961 Talk 19:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hurricane Delta[edit]

Provisional Support It looks like this is only going to get worse. Let's hold off for a day or two, but definitely ITN material especially as regards Louisiana getting hit twice w/ hurricanes of late This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait – extent of impact is unclear. Hundreds of thousands without power doesn't make it notable enough for ITN. fwiw, the alt blurbs are less than ideal or too sensationalistic.~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Both landfalls of the hurricane were sensationalized: Cancún for being a tourist destination and Louisiana for being already hit by Hurricane Laura in August. Relative to expected impacts of borderline major hurricanes, Delta's effects have been tame. That's not to say it hasn't been destructive, but it's less destructive than would otherwise be expected and below ITN notability. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support thresh Now Although we are focused on Louisiana, I do want to point out that it first hit Mexico, which was also damaged pretty severely damaged. Additionally, we now know that areas are flooded and Lake Charles took another severe hit. That alone makes it worthwhile to add it my opinion.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – for now, per Cyclonebiskit, and due to apparent absence of news sources. – Sca (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but inclined to support - I wouldn't be opposed to posting right now just based on the damage that Delta is already confirmed to have caused, but more information will inevitably become available in the near future which would allow us to make a more informed decision when assessing the notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once body count and damages are tallied, a hurricane hitting the US is always a major event, especially in a season like this, and in an area already battered by Laura.(though this one seemed a bit overhyped; here in New Orleans we only had a gusty day.) Gex4pls (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Events always seem more substantially when they happen to you or near you, but we need to maintain an objective POV here. A hurricane hitting the US is NOT always a major event. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, and I probably should not have included any POV in my original comment, but it's still a major event, not just in the US, but also in the Yucatan, where it made landfall in an area already affected by Gamma a few days prior. Gex4pls (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not widely covered at this point. – Sca (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose An insignificant storm in the scheme of things. This storm hasnt had an exceptionally bad impact from what has been portrayed thus far. Noah^Talk 16:35, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct. Deaths are still counting and already at 5+, it intensified beyond belief towards the Yucatan, and was a major hurricane even at Louisiana landfall. To say it's "insignificant" disgusts me (ik ik opinions ew). ~ AC5230 talk 02:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hurricane Delta is this year's Hurricane Wilma. Count Iblis (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wilma was the most powerful hurricane on record in the Atlantic and caused catastrophic damage in Mexico and Florida...Delta was a Category 4 that weakened before both landfall and has, as of writing this, indirectly killed two people. The rate of intensification is meteorologically interesting, but calling Delta 2020’s Wilma is an incredibly misleading comparison. ~~(Message from Cyclonebiskit on my phone, don’t want to log in when I’m not on my computer. I’ll verify this when I’m home).~~ ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its over exaggerated calling this storm Wilma, though Template:Ping, the storm has now killed four. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Thankfully ended up being a nothingburger. WaltCip-(talk) 21:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that much of a nothing burger Template:Ping, though less impact than expected. Also, as expected, deaths get announced after the storm. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support storm done at least a couple hundred million bucks. Category 2. Better then Gamma. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, 4 died. I say we wait 48 hours. Laura's deaths took weeks to pile in. Maria's took months. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:Ping Deaths now up to 5. More reports should be coming in.~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep us posted. – Sca (talk) 23:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four indirect deaths and one direct does not a notable storm make. I stand by my oppose. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Average hurricane killing an average number of people while causing an average amount of damage. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off, mainly per Template:Ping deaths and damage still need to be counted in the US. But I also do agree with Template:Ping that its damage in Mexico can be reported on as of yet. ~ AC5230 talk 02:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait For a more clearer and beyond "normal" report of the damage from the hurricane to appear. Gotitbro (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jimmie Lee Solomon[edit]

Support Looks good, well sourced article JW 1961 Talk 10:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks clean and meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Whitey Ford[edit]

Strong Support Very famous Baseball player. He still holds MLB records. He is this list of all time career wins. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant amounts of the article are unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to be blunt here. If Monica Roberts is notable enough for the recent death section (See previous days) then a MLB legend must be notable. IMO, if he doesn't get accepted I will go nuts... Elijahandskip (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite hasn't even talked about whether Ford is famous or not, but the article, as is the case, is missing many sources. This isn't about remarkableness, but about the quality of the article. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The needed quality improvements are in progress and I will ping when the article is ready to be reviewed in earnest. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support Thirty-nine references. Not sure how this is viewed as coming up short. A MLB icon that goes well beyond HoF. CoatCheck (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Strikethrough The article is fairly well-sourced, but the "Legacy" section, with the "Career Statistics" and "World Series and All-Star Games" subsections are mostly unsourced. When that's fixed, the article should be good to go. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping, I think it's fully sourced now. Please re-review. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good now. Good job.NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support decent article, good job on the updates JW 1961 Talk 21:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Nice work with the improvements. Spencer^T•C 21:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, lol. I was coming here to type 'Ready'. Looks good. Might have to move to October 8. Ktin (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 8 Template:Cob

Support as all the other Nobel Prizes were in ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U ITNR items do not require support on the merits, just an evaluation of article quality and the blurb. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support just do it. A bit surprised that they gave it to the UN... ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - How does that work? Do they just drape the medal around the logo outside the Rome HQ?--WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they need a longer ribbon than if they give it to a person. The ribbon in 2012 was especially long. On a more serious note, the target article should probably be the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, which needs some work first. --Tone 13:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, or in that we still want the recipient to be the target article if not jointly, as with all the other Nobels this week. As Pawnkingthree points out, expanding why the committee gave it the award and adding some additional commentary would help, its not far off. --Masem (t) 14:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose on quality issues only: the "WFP Innovation Accelerator" is not sourced (its all to program links and not third party), and the Criticism section is rather awkwardly structured. Weak as these are easily fixed and not show stoppers but should be fixed before posting. --Masem (t) 13:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A one-line update is not really sufficient; needs some more detail.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support having a UN organization awarded as Noble prize is unexpected. But maybe all of them nomination (along with Physics) needs to be grouped together in the ITN. 36.68.193.87 (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ per Masem. Obviously worth including but the quality issues are significant. I'd go further and say that the Criticism section is abysmal at present. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support. I just took a hatchet to the WP:PROMO/WP:UNDUE content in this article, which hopefully makes it passable enough to get on the main page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's get this over with and we can get back to posting actual news This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just said in the Van Halen nom below that this is a "more important" story. So what's your angle? Are you just trying to rile people up?--WaltCip-(talk) 16:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 of the 4 stories in ITN are Nobel Prize-related. This seems excessive, but the rules are the rules so we can get back to it. Besides, the NPP isn't even in the news, not on the front page of the BBC (and the Whitmer kidnapping is, which we decided not to post). 16:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs)

Support in principle, should target to the Programme to be consistent with the other prize blurbs. Keep the current image of Glück, though, a logo doesn't seem appropriate. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Now targets the program. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I was thinking of this as well -- but then, realized that I recall most other UN logos but not the WFP logo, perhaps because I had not seen it much (and hence, had not subconsciously registered it). So, not a bad idea if we want to add the logo as a picture. Perfectly alright to not include as well. Ktin (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, and I don't believe a logo is entirely unprecedented. I still believe it's suboptimal, but will leave that for the posting admin to decide. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I ended up leaving Louise Glück's photo there. I'm not a fan of either the logo or WFP's headquarters, but if pressed I'd have gone with the logo. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Of all the Nobel prizes, this is the one that seems like a no brainer. I’ve been kinda iffy on whether Nobel season is ITN, but this seems like the most important one. The Image Editor (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re Nobel Prizes/"season" is WP:ITN/R, i.e., articles only need to be of main page quality as their notability is already established. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as ready. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:52, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re Can we have the logo back on, the current picture/caption makes it seem as if the director was also a co-recipient. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it's just the same as when we show the captain of a sports team. Step hen 04:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the building or logo is better than a picture of the ED. It was a team effort; a pic of one man is too much great man-ing. Le v!v ich 04:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the two are comparable and this all the more relevant since Noble Peace Prizes when given to organizations usually also include its leader. Gotitbro (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, that article has some unreferenced content and might not be ready for homepage as of yet. Ktin (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 8[edit]

(Closed) Ghazanchetsots Cathedral[edit]

Comment - I, honestly, don't think this nom will have many supports, because the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is already on the "Ongoing" section.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fits into the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, which is already in ongoing. Also, you should probably change "severely destroyed" to something eles. Gex4pls (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Already in the ongoing section. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, main conflict has already been posted and is currently in ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and snow close NPOV concern as we don't see equal coverage giving to destroyed mosques from Armenian shelling as well, as mentioned in main article. Albertaont (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mohammad-Reza Shajarian[edit]

Oppose for now. Article is missing several refs and has several cn tags.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --93.117.189.33 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several paragraphs and sections are, still, unsourced.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, chiefly for Template:Ping. Although the CN tags have been fixed, there is still a fair amount of unsourced content - especially in the "Political career" section. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? 93.117.189.33 (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any references for Mohammad-Reza Shajarian#Significant works? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some sources. 93.117.189.33 (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is one more CN tag in the "political career" section. Otherwise, I think it's reasonably ok for posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Monica Roberts[edit]

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate Elijahandskip (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Article is stubby and we don’t even know her birthdate. The notability is pretty debatable here. The Image Editor (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply to Article has been updated with birth date. Page also includes 3827 B of readable prose, far above the standards for "stub". Morgan695 (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article is sourced and is C class according to ORES. TJMSmith (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the consensus on these scenarios? Moving the article to October 5 will significantly reduce the window of opportunity to get onto the RD carousel. The last RD currently is October 5. So, this might have to go to RD now / asap. Just a quick look, the article seems clean. Ktin (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I’m still not 100% on board with putting this on the main page, but the article is slightly better than I initially thought, so I won’t oppose the nomination. The Image Editor (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The work she has done for the Black Transgender community is unparalleled. Before the mainstream media, even before the LGBTQ mainstream media reported on the murders of Black Transgender Women, she covered it. She is extremely notable for the LGBTQ community and is a Civil Rights champion who should not be ignored. Her life's work was that Black Transgender Women not be ignored in death; we at Wikipedia should do the very least and recognize her contributions by mentioning her for RD. -TenorTwelve (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good. Should be ready. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot[edit]

Oppose Nothingburger --212.74.201.241 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if expanded to a reasonable article, this was stopped before it actually happened. It might be different if it was a federal-level person, but even then, a failed kidnapping or the like is really not notable for ITN. --Masem (t) 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a stretch to call this a coup attempt, the FBI stopped it before they could advance the coup. 331dot (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t know how this didn’t cause an edit conflict with the entree above. (Maybe close this as there is no blurb or anything really with this and do voting on one above? Elijahandskip (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or Not...As I typed that comment out, the more detailed one got closed....Guess we are voting on this.....In that case, OPPOSE as there is NO blurb and NO sources.Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still oppose even though details from first were brought down.Elijahandskip (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Ping Are you opposing this nomination? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 1) ~~it's a tiny stub~~ 2) they failed 3) they failed big time. KittenKlub (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the event itself is noteworthy, based on the sourced content in the stub. Also, the stub can be greatly expanded. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article can be expanded,~~ however the coup cannot be expanded any more. They didn't even get close to Governor Whitmer. KittenKlub (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is notable even though the plot foiled and it's a state-level instead of a plot against the federal government and looks like major local news. However a lot of news media has published an article about it. Like in the US a coup or even a coup plot is in most Western countries rare. Even though it's still local it's rare to see one, which makes it notable in mine view. I also don't think the article's title is the right name for the incident. Like most people already addressed, it's still a plot but I don't know if we can change the title to "Michigan coup plot attempt"? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been renamed. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGF and all, but this is why we get accused of thinking this is US-pedia. This is such a small story it shouldn't even get an article, let alone be on ITN. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think arrests of people who had planned to kidnap and execute a governor merits an article, but I agree with the rest of your statement. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ram Vilas Paswan[edit]

Support A longstanding MP and minister should deserve its own space in the mainpage. Note to Template:U, it might be helpful to link to news articles outside India to see the coverage of this news. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Template:U. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has some referencing gaps. Spencer^T•C 22:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:U, I will get to it tonight. Unless someone gets to it prior. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)~~ Done.[reply]
Support. The above edits are done. Article looks good from a references / citations standpoint. Ktin (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important figure in Indian politics, a ten term parliamentarian, held multiple ministries in the central government. Outside india sources have been added,referencing improved. PratyushSinha101 (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing:Indonesia omnibus bill protests[edit]

Support It is a big thing occurring and definitely deserves a seat at the Main Page. Gerald WL 15:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for either main page or ongoing, protests seem important. Gex4pls (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Juxlos has already stated his opposition here. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as protests seem violent (at least more violent that George Floyd or Belarus). Will also support ongoing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Luis for that. Luis clearly have some balls to get out and record the demonstrations (and not get injured). Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got stuck in a traffic jam that time, so I thought Why not? Sadly I only have 15 holy seconds... I stopped recording as it went more violent. Should've recorded it throughout while running, argh stupid me. Gerald WL 10:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – RS coverage, beyond the region, of three days of protests reports 1,000s of demonstrators in multiple locations met with tear gas and water cannon, no fatalities. – Sca (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping 6 police wounded. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 16:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Is this not the same as February protests? We don't put every George Floyd protest resurgence every time someone is additionally shot or killed. 1,000s of demonstrators in multiple locations met with tear gas and water cannons seem like what I see on CNN and BBC for US every day. Albertaont (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Uhhh...no. This is the main protest. The february was just like a skirmish and nothing compared to this one. The February demonstration was only limited in Jakarta, while the October demonstration was nationwide. And I can't found any instance of demonstration in February. There's almost no mention of the February demonstration, while the October demonstration was relayed back to back in Indonesian television. The small skirmish protests expanded and peaked after the enactment of the bill, and the February protests wasn't put into the ITN. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 01:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could confidently say that there were little to no protests in February. Surely, before the enactment of the law, people would resort to peaceful advocacy and audiency. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 01:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neutral Ok, you convinced me. I'm neutral now, maybe the February protests can be split, since its just a few lines and have it as an intro. Albertaont (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I had already opposed earlier - I would just note the current state of the article's grammar. Juxlos (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:U, it might be helpful to restate your opinion as to why you oppose for clearer rationale. Do you oppose the article because of the grammar? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 14:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go and do a copyedit to comply with Canadian English. Gerald WL 16:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping, how about a compromise to put it in the ongoing? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 10:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm still quite unconfident about the coverage level of the protests. Admittedly, international news is being eclipsed by a few other big jolts so this doesn't seem to be close to headline. Juxlos (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template:Ping To answer your concerns, I've crosscheck it with the criteria at the Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance:

Template:Tq The articles discussing about the event are long and go into great detail. For example check on the sources at the news sources in the upper template.

Template:Tq All major news sources have a different reporting about the story. For example check on the sources at the news sources in the upper template.

Template:Tq Very frequent, check the frequency for CNA, Reuters, Antara News (even the government is reporting about the demos frequently)

Template:Tq Varied news outlets, from domestic neutral about omnibus law (independent domestic news sources such as kompas etc) to pro-omnibus law (government owned such as Antara), to international news sources (mentioned on the sources at the news sources in the upper template)

Comment Only sustained major protests which have been going on for at least sometime get ITN coverage. This is still too early for that. Should wait and see if the protests continue, these are mostly limited to Jakarta and seem to have mostly been dispersed by government forces. Gotitbro (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - protests are quite widespread across not-Jakarta: Surabaya, Medan, Bandung and Makassar (the main secondary cities) have seen some too, though smaller in scale. Juxlos (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check out 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests. The protests are also limited to their capital.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have changed my nom to ongoing instead. Pinging those who have commented here: Template:Ping Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 12:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Protests have died down, as the spike is on 8 October. However the news is still reporting on it. Not sure if it would fit ongoing or a seat in the bulleted list; either choices I'll support it. It could've been more interesting if it's nominated on 6 and quickly reserved. Gerald WL 12:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Template:U, what does the "ready" mean? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Oops, sorry, haven't read the page header. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unmarked ready. We don't quite have consensus here yet. Also, my understanding is that items should be blurbed first, and later, if they are still ongoing, then the ongoing section can be considered. Correct me if I'm wrong — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I alert the people in the WP:ID, would it be considered canvassing? How do I attract more people to express their opinion about this?Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 22:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the Indonesian Wikiproject regarding this matter. I just can't risk this for a stale (it should be a fail/success). Feel free to trout or block me of suspected canvassing. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 11:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly no bad actions have been done by you. It's a good decision actually that you attract people from WPID. I'm sure you must be lelah akan menunggu. Gerald WL 12:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedians are quite noisy about canvassing. There's enough amount of blocks caused by canvassing here. So I would voluntarily get one (it'll count as self-imposed block) rather than being blocked forcefully by the admins. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 15:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping How many more consensus do we need? Have notify people everywhere but no one seems to respond. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 23:59, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silence can also mean that a lot of editors do not feel that this is ITN-qualified, and yet is not confident enough to directly oppose it. Juxlos (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Juxlos and anybody who doesn't comment. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 06:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this seems to have become stale. I recognise that the article is receiving fresh updates every day but I don't think this is featuring in international press anymore. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Martin, it's the inevitable. Please close this nomination as stale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 08:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 7 Template:Cob

Support The article is in good shape. KittenKlub (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Might as well get Nobel Prize season out of our system Gex4pls (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article that is well sourced. I enjoy seeing these impressive academics featured on the homepage. TJMSmith (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the Template:Tls have now been addressed, mostly by Template:U (thanks!). Modest Genius ^talk 12:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is ready to go. I looked for any newer free images (she looks fine in her elder years) but can't find anything sadly, but have put the one from '77 in image protection. --Masem (t) 13:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to use an image from >40 years ago, we should probably say that in the caption. Modest Genius ^talk 13:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, hence why I noted its from '77 here. Sadly, while she had gotten a medal of honor from Pres. Obama, I can't find a .gov based image of her, and the only .gov based images are all third-party credits (not PD-gov works). --Masem (t) 13:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Came here wondering why it wasn't there already. I was initially perplexed as to why the image was in the public domain, since it is relatively recent, but seems like the licensing checks out. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's get Nobel week over with. Eager to see who gets the peace prize. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posting. --Tone 17:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re A more recent picture of her would be nice. Gotitbro (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly would, but we don't have any others — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I did a search on flickr and google images but came up nothing, even nothing with a firm clear PD out of the US .gov area either. --Masem (t) 19:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 7[edit]

(Closed) Two world records in athletics[edit]

Support both articles fairly well sourced and look ok for main page JW 1961 Talk 12:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support both articles are fully sourced and ready. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The achievement seems big enough to justify a blurb, but it's a shame that Gidey's article is all WP:PROSELINE. The updates are pretty minimal but good enough as I suppose there isn't much more to say. Modest Genius ^talk 12:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as explained by the editors above. TJMSmith (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anyway to weave the event into the blurb? Two records broken out of the blue with no well-known event is odd (but it is legit, not questioning that). The event appears to be specifically crafted to allow athletes to try to break WRs. --Masem (t) 13:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't support when we posted Cheptegei's 5000m record in August, and I don't support these either. I enjoy athletics/track and field, I just don't think incremental improvements to distance world records are that newsworthy.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this point in athletics history, when we have reached almost the extent of human capability, increases to world records are going to be incremental and small. It's inevitable. Crushing a record a'la Bob Beamon is going to be extraordinarily rare.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:06, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Two new world records set at the same competition is clearly newsworthy. Also, both results are remarkable because of the relatively large margins compared to the previous world records.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidey's article isn't great but its sufficient. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Single sentence updates aren't sufficient. What I would consider minimum standards is the update in Cheptegei's article about is 5K WR earlier this year. Spencer^T•C 22:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bios look fine now, the main article as explained above can’t be puffed up beyond one-liners. Gotitbro (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Spencer that a one sentence update is not sufficient. A bit more detail is needed please. Any reactions? A summary of the race? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ray Pennington[edit]

Support looks ok for RD, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 12:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Looks fine to me as a short RD. Interesting to note that he's a Ramblin' Man, kind of reminds me of a Wikipedia editor I've seen around here before. — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mario Molina[edit]

Support. Streamlined sections and did a round of copy edits. Well-referenced article. Meets hygiene standards for homepage / RD. Someone has added a 'move' tag on the page. But, I don't think that should have an impact on homepage readiness. I will be awake for an hour for any edits. RIP. Ktin (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is in good condition. The move tag is a shame though. KittenKlub (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article and removed the ugly tag — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good job on updating Template:U, now a nice little article, looks ok for RD JW 1961 Talk 12:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's an amusing little coincidence how the 1995 Nobel Chemistry Prize winner dies the same day as the 2020 ones are announced. - Poydoo can talk and edit 13:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Hurricane Delta[edit]

Oppose, per WP:CRYSTAL. The imposition of a state of emergency is far from ITN-worthy in its own right. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was the alt blurb. Main blurb doesn’t mention the state of emergency. Also ongoing events don’t have the blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not (yet) remotely worthy of ITN. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall a hurricane ever being posted as ongoing. We generally need to wait for the effects. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I agree, since the Mexican President just announced that no deaths occurred during the storm. I suggest Template:Ping that you withdraw from this nom, and then re-nominate it once it hits to United States (Louisiana can't bear another major hurricane, it's still struggling with Laura). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for more impacts to be announced. In addition, it's going to hit Louisiana as a even stronger hurricane (see Hurricane Laura). Changed from ongoing to blurb. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait (Nominator) is voting wait with a blurb change once it has hit the United States. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. If there's a vote that screams "US BIAZ!!!", it's this one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Golden Dawn verdict[edit]

Oppose – Parochial. Party has 0 MPs in either the Hellenic Parliament or European Parliament. At any rate, the target section does not support the label of Neo-Nazi in the blurb. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Sorry if I don't edit in the correct way, please do it for me. Although I don't agree with this point, I should correct the facts, they actually have 1 EMP who is found guilty today, even if he dissociated himself from the party recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foivos87 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In addition to C&C's concerns, the target article has cite tags and the update is not substantial enough.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose local politics. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Parochial, but so are many things we post here This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support because Golden Dawn elected two members in the current European Parliament in 2019 (even if they were both later kicked out of or left the party), and as recently as 2015, they finished 3rd in the Greek elections. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like the Libertarian or Green party being labeled as a criminal organization. Still, it's local politics, who knows what the Golden Dawn even is outside of Greece? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - More like if UKIP were. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Wacko fringe politix. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability The arguments against the notability could all equally well apply to UKIP, and I would have considered UKIP being declared a criminal organization sufficiently notable to post. TompaDompa (talk) 18:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added altblurb, and changing my vote to full Support per TompaDompa This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the altblurb better EdwardLane (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support if quality is good enough. It’s hard to call it fringe when they were the third largest group in the Greek parliament for four years. Prefer the alt blurb. I’m on mobile so I can’t really comment on the article quality. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're fringe now, though, and they've always been extremists, from what I've seen. – Sca (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article is marked as B-class quality, which seems about right. There are 2-3 inline maintenance tags but nothing major. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 6 Template:Cob

Support - at first glance I see nothing stopping a posting of this Prize. Also historic win for two women.BabbaQ (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that the articles look ready for homepage. Tagging Template:U to see if a composite image can be attempted which includes both winners. Also, agree with nom that genome editing can be included in the blurb. The CRISPR gene editing article might require some effort in referencing. Ktin (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone beat me to the punch, but I see no issue with the proposed composite image, and I've added it to the image protection queue. --Masem (t) 13:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Articles are impressive, especially Doudna's. Looks ready to go. I agree we should get CRISPR gene editing into the blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The articles look good at a glance. Both licenses at File:Emmanuelle Charpentier.jpg and File:Professor Jennifer Doudna ForMemRS.jpg are solid. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both articles on the laureates are good to go and surprising indepth. I would only suggest giving Penrose's picture a bit more time before swapping pictures. --Masem (t) 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted - suggest changes to WP:ERRORS -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, I gave credit / thanks to Template:U for the nomination on your behalf as that might have been inadvertently missed post posting. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 6[edit]

(Closed) RD: Folker Bohnet[edit]

Looks good. Wish we could post it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale. Oldest RD is October 7. Wish we could’ve posted this earlier.
I explained that the obituary wasn't there earlier, and that it would need ignoring a rule. I said so three days ago. This process is disappointing at times. I will nominate him for DYK, but that means 500 readers instead of 5000. He made people laugh, and deserves to be remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herbert Feuerstein[edit]

Support I see the article has improved since yesterday. Nice small article. KittenKlub (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clever humor and wonderful nonsense. Article ok. Grimes2 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Johnny Nash[edit]

Oppose for now. I came here to nominate it, but the article has few missing refs. They are easy to fix. Due to his fame I expect it to be fixed soon.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re added refs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Re could you have another look, please? —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's nearly there but a lot of the discography section still needs referencing. Will change to support if/when some knowledgeable editor can fix this JW 1961 Talk 07:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re added refs for the discography section. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support, thanks for the ping and updating the article Template:U, looks good JW 1961 Talk 16:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose discography looks like it still needs some refs Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U Which parts are missing refs? I want to change my vote to "support", but I want to be sure that the article is ready. I checked it and I could find any missing refs.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a source for the Adult Contemporary, Cashbox, or Canadian chart positions, even at AllMusic. Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Re Added refs for those charts. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted Step hen 04:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted RD) RD/Blurb: Eddie Van Halen[edit]

Support A couple of refs and a little copy editing is needed, however I assume that the article will be in good shape soon. Eddie Van Halen is definitely ITN material. KittenKlub (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support There is on CN as I read it now, and I would REALLY like to see that Other Work proseline killed quickly in favor of real prose (it sticks out badly). And to nip this in the bud, Oppose blurb - perhaps a symbol of the 80s for a lot of people around my age group but not the type of influential musician as someone like Bowie or Prince - his career was too closely tied with the band itself and not so much any direct solo work. --Masem (t) 19:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it was basically his band. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support - Other work section needs lots of work, and theres a citation needed tag in Early Life. Has merits for a blurb, but I'm on the fence. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with the Billie Eilish doesn’t know what Van Halen is so they can’t be relevent route. Every news alert I got called him a guitar hero and legend even if VH peaked 40 years ago. Trillfendi (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb - We did not post the blurb of Chris Cornell, who would be about the same stature. Agreed with the above that he needs to be sui generis influential a'la Bowie or Prince.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - One of the top handful of guitarists of all time. I understand if this just gets an RD listing, but he was hugely influential. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but a blurb is only for those whose death and/or funeral could be a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RD at the moment based on quality; oppose blurb - his field is solo guitarist and, while a legend, I wouldn't put him in the top X. Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article can use a couple of tweaks, but he was definitely ITN RD notable at the least. Heck, I wouldn't be opposed to a blurb; he was prominent enough for The New York Times to send out an email alert about his death, much like the aforementioned Bowie and Prince. oknazevad (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose RD – a couple orange tags and citations needed. Didn't see anyone nominate for a blurb in the first place so I won't !vote on that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a substantial innovator in his field. Leaning oppose on a blurb, though. BD2412 T 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Terraformed rock and roll and took guitar musicianship to places the world had never seen. CoatCheck (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, once the orange tag is taken care of JW 1961 Talk 20:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No blurb I don't think we'd blurb Gene Simmons, and this is about the same level or slightly lower. Still orange-tagged, too. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb per Bongwarrior. Arguably "transformative" in his field. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support' - but please change "Dutch American" to "Dutch–American". --IWI (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD the article was cleaned up very well - thank you to those who did it. A very decent article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb – support RD – Guess I missed being 'transformatized' by Van Halen. – Sca (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb. Not Thatcher or Mandela level of global influence. — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maintenance (e.g., citation needed) tags have been resolved and issues with the "Other work" section have been fixed. TribunalMan (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Not quite seeing a blurb here, though I'd hardly call it a crime if there was. Teemu08 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Great guitarist, influential but not Prince or Bowie. P-K3 (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral blurb Not Prince or Bowie in fame, but easily a household name and near the top as far as influence and skill. Article is decent. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm neutral on a blurb, but I would like to stress that - to my knowledge at least - the standard we typically use is whether an individual was at the top of their respective field, not whether they changed the world as much as Nelson Mandela. In my experience, the "Thatcher Mandela rule" hasn't really applied at ITN for the last several years, so it would be best if supporters of said standard do more than just invoke the names of Mandela and Thatcher to explain why they oppose. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Small In seriousness, I've more often seen Prince and Bowie for musical artists, Thatcher and Mandela for political figures and Fisher (bitterly, typically) and Williams for actors. There is of course the "Thatcher/Mandela every time" faction, but fewer in number. -- a lad insane (channel two) 23:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Inspired a generation to play guitar well, not to sing and trouble audiences with the nature of his game. Prince and Bowie were no Van Halen, that was their whole point, the reverse is equally true. Hard rock might likely have perished in the '80s the way pop was going under those two. 142.51.200.1 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb – This is the price we pay for raising the bar so high. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked it as ready. Whether or not there is consensus for a blurb, it is ready to post to RD. -- Calidum 00:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral on blurb Not sure if he meets the threshold for a blurb, I have seen very few musicians get one in general. Definitely support a listing on RD; Article looks good. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb - does not meet fairly high blurb threshold. Neutrality^talk 02:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD – discussion for blurb can remain open but consensus appears to be leaning against. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb Despite his solo on Michael Jackson's "Beat It", non-rock fans more familiar with his band than him.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for blurb I appreciate 70s and 80s rock music is something of a niche topic, but even those completely unfamiliar with his work will recognise the name and the unique guitar style. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose for blurb Not necessarily against it, but we have more important stores (Nobel Prizes, etc.) to post and the RD is fine This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics[edit]

Ghez's article is short but has just one Template:Tl to address. Genzel is missing a lot of references for awards etc. Penrose's article is much longer but has long passages with no references so will be the hardest to fix. I think we can post once Ghez is ready with just that article bolded, then bold the others as/when they're ready. Modest Genius ^talk 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong suppport: no justification needed.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support We even have a nice FP pic for this. Added to nom. --cart-Talk 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that black hole (M87*) is not related to their work. Modest Genius ^talk 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for a free image of Ghez with no luck but made up a compoosite image for Penrose and Genzel. --Masem (t) 14:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to look pretty bad if we show images of the two men but not the woman... Better not to have an image at all. Modest Genius ^talk 14:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that issue, but again, there's simply no apparent free images of Ghez. That said, we can always just show Penrose (who has half the prize here) and of which there's more than plenty to pull from. --Masem (t) 14:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Masem's "just show Penrose" suggestion per his lifelong prominence. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about File:UCLA astrophysicist Andrea Mia Ghez.jpg? It has been in her article for a while. Brandmeister^talk 17:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something's odd: I go to the source that image claims, which is an NSF page (ok so far), here [23] but it says there "Credit: Courtesy of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation via Wikimedia Commons" and the image is linked to a 2014 article [24] which implies we had an image here before that NSF used, but I don't see any signs of that image. So something's very odd here, and I'd not want to use it unless I knew the original source for sure. --Masem (t) 17:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that image originally came from here. Copyright info there is broadly CC-BY-NC-ND, but it specifically carves out an exception for media organizations to use its media, including photos, under CC-BY. jSarek (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a weird license, which I don't think works for us because that means it doesn't apply to redistributors of our content that don't meet their definition of "media". I am confirming over at Commons to make sure if this is a problem. We are in no rush but if this is usable, I will composite the three shots to one. --Masem (t) 19:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has confirmed this is not a good enough license for us to use as "Free" because its conditional. --Masem (t) 13:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose obviously based on poor quality BLPs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per consistency (the Nobel Prizes usually blurbed). Since yesterday's is still not posted, maybe combine two at a time, with a separate blurb for the fifth (the Peace Prize). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We have never combined the individual Nobels. --Masem (t) 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Would rather put them up separately, just trying to find middle ground. Lots of recent 'citation needed' tags added which don't bode well for this nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per TRM, if you want to bold the recipients, then they have to be decent BLP articles. Currently many are unsourced. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per TRM, article quality is not up to main page readiness. If someone cleans up the referencing, I'd be good with posting this. --Jayron 32 13:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support also, in part, because we have a history of being bad at representing women who get Nobel prizes. Also +1 to Modest's comment of not representing the men if there is not a picture of Ghez. Sadads (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only has it important coverage, but it also means the fourth woman to have been awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physics. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No time to review the articles at the moment, but we really should not feature images of the two men if the woman who won cannot also be featured. This would be the case at the best of times, but is especially the case post Donna Strickland. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am waiting for Commons experts to confirm if a "free" image of Ghey is really free, at which point I will montage the 3 of them; otherwise, the proposed solution is to stick with Penrose (by far, the most famous of the three of them). See above for discussion, but this is absolutely on point and correct we should not just feature the two men. --Masem (t) 22:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I have looked over of the several deletion pages and the original OTRS ticket. This is a NO, not free for use on the Main Page.
  
  I suggest using a single photo at a time to avoid the obvious concerns. We cannot be blamed for not having a photo of Ghez, but we can be blame for creating a composite with her missing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've presently replaced the two-man image with just a Penrose (that is at image protection now). --Masem (t) 01:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coming in quite late here. Other than the image that Template:U is following up on, what is pending here? Anything that I (or others in the group here) can help with? Ktin (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, the article Roger Penrose needs a lot of work. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, ~~Gave it a good go! 4 Template:CN tags remain, which are really at a paragraph level. If someone can take a pass at these, I think we should be close to ready!~~ Alrightie folks! All Template:CN tags are now removed. I think the article looks good to go to the homepage. If there are any other edits needed, I will be online for an hour before calling it a night. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All three articles are good enough now. Kudos to Ktin for his efforts on Penrose. KittenKlub (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, posting. Get ready for chemistry today. --Tone 07:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks! It will be good to see if Template:U gets an update at commons for that composite three member image. If that comes in good -- it would be worthwhile to add the composite image. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Najeeb Tarakai[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 5 Template:Cob

Support The article is well sourced. The subject's death has been mentioned in sources like Reuters. Abishe (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well sourced JW 1961 Talk 08:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is well sourced and well written. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 5[edit]

(Posted) Blurb/Ongoing: 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests[edit]

Oppose for now. Let's wait to see how this develops in the next few days. The figures on the number of protesters so far don't point to any notability (the number of injured is yet high but unreferenced) and the article is merely a stub.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: need to add a reference to the elections. A blurb like, The Central Election Commission of Kyrgyzstan annuls the results of the recent parliamentary election, following protests in the capital, Bishkek. Sheila1988 (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did we post the election? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support with blurb change as the protests seem to be a major situation. One of the recent events was a fire that injured 590 people. Also this situation has caused multiple governors in Kyrgyzstan to resign.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment check Portal:Current events for October 5-6 to see some of the notable parts of this. Blurb 100% needs changing, but the event is notable enough for ITN.Elijahandskip (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Template:U. Currently has no blurb. This will likely be more fit for Ongoing.~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support For ongoing, just like the belarus ones, seem to be a lot of election based protests this year Gex4pls (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment switching to ongoing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb Added (Violent protests in Kyrgyzstan break out due to the results of the Kyrgyz parliamentary election. Protesters seize multiple government buildings in the midst of the Coup d'état.). I went ahead and made a blurb for the event. It might be too long, but I honestly think both parts are huge. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle but oppose on article quality. Stubby. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but way too early for it to be "ongoing". —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and wait Sorry but this article is still a stub if the nomination is for ongoing. If this thing lasts for another few days (most likely), we can post then. Albertaont (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose direct-to-ongoing Willing to support a blurb following article expansion/improvements, but items should generally go to ongoing first (esp for recent events) before rolling onto ongoing (if eligible). Spencer^T•C 19:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support and proposing altblurb3 - parliamentary results have been annulled. I have added references to the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for altblurb2 on neutrality grounds, or at the very least ongoing. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment better at the ongoing --Tensa Februari (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems to have essentially universal support and for good reason. Go for blurb This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted alt3 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This aged out amid of flood of Nobel prizes, but per the discussion above and the continuing updates to the article/situation, I moved it to ongoing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Tropical Storm Gamma[edit]

Oppose A bit tame compared to other tropical cyclones, the impacts also haven't exactly been confirmed yet. If it ends up significantly damaging mexico, then it could make ITN, but for now it's only resulted in six confirmed deaths, and mild damage. Delta on the other hand might end up ITN, if the forecasts prevail. It's already made landfall, btw, it's just going to make landfall again. Gex4pls (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 5 deaths is unfortunate, but it is not significant enough for ITN. INeedSupport ^😷 18:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until landfall per others. We'll have to see its ultimate impact. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 6 people have now died. I'll lean support but not yet. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)A storm like this is pretty [[[reply]
Oppose This seems to be a petty run-of-the-mill tropical storm. Unless we get word of catastrophic flooding, I don't think it's worth mentioning here. Also, a correction, Gamma did indeed make landfall in the Yucatan. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ec Oppose per everyone. 6 people is somewhat average, unless we see bad flooding or an unlikely restrengthening into a category 1 hurricane. But that's unlikely. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. By all indications, the following storm, Delta, will be a much more significant news story in a few days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This was closed [25] but I've reopened. There is no need to snow-close something after only 90 minutes, no matter how good your pun is. I'm neutral on posting this at the moment, but I don't think the presence of another storm should dictate whether or not this one gets posted. -- Calidum 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping I think what Template:U meant is that this storm isn't newsworthy or noteworthy. So he opposed it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yup, and also, the storm is about to be massively overshadowed by a potential major hurricane landfall. Perhaps both Gamma and Delta will get a mention due to their back to back strikes? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Template:Ping Hurricane watch was just issued for Yucatán last advisory for Delta. But since Gamma is now dead, I’m going to SNOW close this, and perhaps we can mention Gamma when Delta gets nominated. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if you look at satellite, all of the thunderstorms are located 100 miles north of the system, in open water over the Gulf, and the system is basically a remnant low. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment National Hurricane Center says Gamma is dying at a rapid pace. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Bob Wilson[edit]

Comment Not the former Arsenal goalkeeper and broadcaster.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too short right now, it needs expanding.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not in the news. Step hen 22:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too short. Ping me when expanded.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sufficiently ITN, substandard article. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on length. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is short, but it's over 2k prose so not a stub, and has a reasonable summary of his career. Also, comments that it's "not in the news" are invalid, as this is an RD nom. I'd suggest this is ready to go. — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 1310 characters readable prose size. I would like to see more for his Exeter City career than "was the first choice goalkeeper for several years", particularly as the club were the ones who reported his death - Cardiff don't appear to have noticed.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: K. K. Usha[edit]

Support The article is small, but in good condition. KittenKlub (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KittenKlub.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 20:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty well referenced JW 1961 Talk 22:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 23:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Medicine[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 4 Template:Cob

Template:StrikeSupport Template:Strike I guess it is common practice to post individually. Oh well, Support in that case. Gex4pls (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We never have waiting for any individual prize, that's not how it works. --Masem (t) 13:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article and ITN/R all fine. Imagine trying to post all the Nobel Prizes in one blurb - it wouldn't fit in the box. Just post it. Kingsif (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Masem, tis the Nobel season. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose posting only the Award page. These are not super long bios, and it should be easy from the Nobel's committee and articles that should appear (if not already) in NYTimes and other major papers to flesh out the three winners. I've done this in the past several years, it is not hard. (Separately, I've tried searching for free images of Rice with no luck, if we want a composite image of Alter and Houghton like I did for the London Marathon winners, I can do that). --Masem (t) 14:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I deliberately did not bold the awards article - that was Template:U. Undone. There's no way that general article could have a substantial update on just the 2020 award. Unfortunately I don't have time to polish the bios right now (and might save my time for the physics prize). Modest Genius ^talk 14:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nominator. I honestly dunno what is going on here. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? Belugsump (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My God--it's full of stars! Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For multiple winners, I thought we only bolded the prize? Well, you're going to need a lot more refs for Alter, Houghton and Rice seem mostly fine. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we always go for the individual winners. The prize article is trivial to update and barring a complete lack of info on the winners (unlikely) would be the last resort. Clearly not the case here, and it only takes a man-hour or two of work to get all three to shape. --Masem (t) 16:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose only because if we post this, then we would have to post all the other Nobel Prizes, and it would clog up ITN. I propose that we combine all the Nobel Prizes into one post that we make when Nobel season is over. The Image Editor (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do post all the other Nobel Prizes. This happens every year and we've never combined blurbs before. They're separate entries at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Nobel_Prizes. Modest Genius ^talk 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because we've never done it does not mean we can't. This is not a court. Stare decisis does not hold. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting them all together would be long, would take up a large part of the space by itself, and by the time the last one is awarded on the 9th this would already be getting stale as older news. Best to continue separating the blurbs, and let them fall off one by one after a few days or a week. The Peace Prize alone would have to be a blurb, so for consistency (and yearly consistency) they should go up one-by-one while they are still news. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is better if the ticker runs faster. Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, post now, worry about improving the articles later. Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Articles have to be Main Page-worthy before they get posted, with all paragraphs being cited and orange tags being cleared up. I haven't looked at the articles so I don't know whether they currently meet those standards, but that's a pretty universal rule. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Best to remove the tags and post, then. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is completely unacceptable, it is not just the presence of tags but the lack of sourcing where it is expected to be. --Masem (t) 05:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It almost seems like some editors have spent more time expounding here, and not on fixing the problem. Abductive (reasoning) 06:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right. You've fixed nothing at all. Step hen 06:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is WP:ITN/R and, as so, it should be posted. However, without knowing which is the "target article" it's hard to assess it's quality and readiness to be posted.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 20:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Newsworthy. The highest accolade in science. Uhooep (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is standard for ITN and the articles are acceptable. Natureium (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are not in acceptable shape. Missing citations throughout on all three. Rice's is likely the closest with only citations missing on some awards. --
Support - but main page should be the prize itself. Until articles are up to shape.BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to WP:ITNAWARDS: Template:Tq --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Relevant ITNR, especially during a pandemic. Gotitbro (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rice's article is now fully cited, so I think we can post with that as the bold link. Houghton is also close so I'll fix that up shortly. Can someone mark as ready? Modest Genius ^talk 10:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Houghton is now also fully cited so can be bold. Modest Genius ^talk 10:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But what about Harvey Alter? I don't think we can pick and choose, because all three won, and therefore all three need to be of sufficient quality. I think Alter is ready now. Support KittenKlub (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose More work needed. For example, the article about the virus which is linked in the blurb has several orange cleanup banners and doesn't mention any of the 3 scientists. As I understand it, Alter established that there was something to be found, Houghton found and named it and Rice helped study it. Saying that they collectively "discovered" it seems to be an oversimplification. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article quality requirements apply only to the bold link(s), see WP:ITNCRIT. I have no objection to saying 'work on' instead of 'discovery', but the Nobel committee and much of the media coverage says they discovered the virus. Modest Genius ^talk 11:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The virus article ought to be bolded because, during this pandemic, people are especially interested in viruses. And another thing – why is there no picture? We have an actual picture (right) of the virus which was discovered. The picture was put into the public domain by one of the winners - Charles Rice – and so we should use this opportunity to show his handiwork. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:ITNAWARDS, the winner of the prize should the target article. The picture should be of the winner(s). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course, sub-standard BLPs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the BLPs are clearly not good enough at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Fully sourced now, AFAICT. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Referencing improved in all articles. I did not bold Rice's article since there is only 1 sentence in the article about his contributions to Hepatitis C research, and needs more expansion before it should be bolded. Houghton's has a marginal update but passable and Alter's is sufficient. Spencer^T•C 13:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on images: I was going to make a composite image but found that the Houghton image came from a source on Commons that has since been deleted, making that image suspectible. That leaves only the image for Alton as the only image for this blurb that I would be reasonably comfortable with having on main page. (A search for Rice brings up no CC/PD images). I'm going to crop the one good image from NIH and prep it. --Masem (t) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, File:Dr. Harvey J. Alter (1935- (28926785543) (cropped).jpg is ready and already protected thru zh.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had cropped the same picture but not as tight File:Harvey_Alter_cropped.jpg so its more a matter of preference. --Masem (t) 14:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:U, sound good. Please bold link Charles Rice at the same time. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pic swapped and Rice bolded. I noted that Rice just got a "free" image but it is lacking appropriate copyright info at commons so not willing to post that yet here. --Masem (t) 15:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 4[edit]

(Closed) RD: Jan des Bouvrie[edit]

Weak oppose - some sections are sparsely cited, I'll support with the addition of more citations. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale oldest RD is October 5. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Carla Federica Nespolo[edit]

Oppose on length. I'd like to see it just a little longer, perhaps with different headers rather than just one "biography" section. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Oldest RD is October 5. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Richard Schifter[edit]

Comment: Pretty close, would like to see just a little bit more detail about what Schifter did in the positions listed in the career section. Spencer^T•C 13:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - citations are adequate. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mordechai Yissachar Ber Leifer[edit]

Support. Reasonably extensive and well-sourced article. However, if we need to explain that Ashdod is in Israel we do also need to explain that New Jersey is in the United States in the infobox! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~but four citations needed~~. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I have either deleted or commented out those statements requiring cites. He was just buried a few hours ago. As more obituaries are published in the English-speaking world, I will update the article. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support well sourced and informational article. Great job by Yoninah! TJMSmith (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New Caledonia independence referendum[edit]

Support in principle but the article is currently orange-tagged and has a few uncited paragraphs. It's a bit odd for them to have another one after only two years, but not the worst part of 2020. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to answer OP's question, we did post the 2018 referendum IIRC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, your memory is better than mine. [26] Banedon (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Big news even though it failed (Possibly more so because it did fail which was unexpected iirc). Once the issues are fixed as mentioned above, excellent ITN candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is the second referendum of three which are required to happen under the Nouméa Accord and any blurb we carry should make this clear.—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could possibly reignite or extinguish tensions between the French and the New Caledonians, definetly ITN Gex4pls (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support–This will be breaking news. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Step hen 00:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pull - the article isn't ready - it's orange tagged, and is missing any prose in the body about the election itself and the results. — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled - I've decided to go ahead and WP:BOLDly pull this one anyway, in the absence of second opinions. It's fairly clear from the project guidelines that orange tags aren't allowed, and the first two !votes above are conditional on the issues being resolved. I also do think some prose is needed on the results as well as on the campaign. Of course there's consensus on notability, so hopefully this can be re-added ASAP. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted - I've added quite a bit of material to the campaign and results sections in the article, expanded the lead a bit, and fixed up cites elsewhere, so I've reposted it. I'm guessing we're going to get a glut of Nobel prize stories coming through soon, as we always do at this time of year, so seemed best to get it some time ASAP. Hopefully this doesn't constitute WP:INVOLVED, as it was also me who pulled it in the first place! But if anyone thinks there are further issues that need resolving then please let me know. — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me; endorse reposting. Spencer^T•C 15:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Major IR news, completely slipped my radar, nice to be informed about this through the main page. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kenzō Takada[edit]

Support well sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks pretty well sourced from a skim, seems good enough for RD Gex4pls (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was coming in to nominate and found the article already nominated. Solid C or B class biography. Meets homepage / RD levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reasonably complete and well-sourced article. --Masem (t) 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 18:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2020 London Marathon[edit]

We can probably make a composite picture of both winners (both have free images) for posting this. --Masem (t) 15:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, though I have literally no idea how to do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the composite image up on Commons, and adding it for protection. --Masem (t) 16:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's an important marathon and the weather only made it harder. The articles are in a good condition. KittenKlub (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article may be brief but supplies sufficient coverage of pre- and of the event and winners. --Masem (t) 16:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Widely followed events (especially in Nagorno-Karabakh). – Sca (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure if this is an issue, but the article is already linked in DYK. That would mean the article would be linked twice on the front page. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At worst, the DYK will roll off in <24 hr, we can technically wait for that to happen, but I don't see harm in posting this while the DYK is happening. --Masem (t) 17:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, it will roll off DYK at midnight UTC tonight, if people think the ITN should wait until then. I expanded it for DYK and then that made it easy for ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per all. The DYK link is not an issue, IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Very decent article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added an alt blurb written in the active voice rather than passive voice. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer Alt. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posted with Alt. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now let's get Nagorno-Karabakh into Ongoing, where it definitely belongs. – Sca (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Fratelli tutti[edit]

Thanks for the nomination, welcome to ITN. Unfortunately I don't see anything particularly significant about this event. Popes release encyclicals every few years; is there any reason why this one is especially important or has wide-ranging implications? The article makes it sound like just warm words. Modest Genius ^talk 13:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, popes do not release encyclicals very often nowadays (last one was in 2015), so I thought it was worthy of being ITN. They usually have quite an impact, cf. Laudato si'#Reception Veverve (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but with a different blurb and without an image. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Pingwhat would your blurb be? Veverve (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping Nothing very original: "Pope Francis releases the encyclical Fratelli tutti addressing [subject]". The latter bit requires rather more imagination and expertise than I have! —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Pingthe subject is "fraternity and social friendship" according to the title of the encyclical. Veverve (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I think it would sound POV if we used that verbatim. I notice the Catholic Herald cited refers to "his social thought" which we might link to Catholic social teaching. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I do not believe it is POV to say "Pope Francis releases the encyclical Fratelli tutti discussion fraternity and social friendship" Veverve (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read the article, you get a generic overview of what's being said. However, if you read the Fratelli tutti, it speaks strongly against the "Me First" politics with statements like: "As I was writing this letter, the Covid-19 pandemic unexpectedly erupted, exposing our false securities. Aside from the different ways that various countries responded to the crisis, their inability to work together became quite evident."[27] and even has a section called A “throwaway” world So maybe some copyediting is needed to make the message more come alive. KittenKlub (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping is it better now? I have added a new section and fleshed out some others. Veverve (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping It is better. Let's make it a Support without the image.KittenKlub (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We post laws rather rarely; given the Pope's much-reduced temporal powers, papal encyclicals do not meet that threshold. We also don't generally post much on religion; when was the last time we posted something from the Dalai Lama, for example? This is nice, but ultimately more like a "fireside chat" in my opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Catholic myself, but do not think a "law" is a good analogy for an encyclical, but nor is the Dalai Lama a good analogy for the Pope. There are fewer than 400 million Buddhists (many of whom do not recognise the Dalai Lama's authority) against 1.2 billion Catholics. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be those as they may, I feel that this is still an announcement by a highly-respected figure, which while nice is still inappropriate for ITN. I don't know if we've posted previous papal encyclicals, or whether my opinion would change if we have. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Pope's encyclical probably won't do much except ask people to do better. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 3 Template:Cob

October 3[edit]

(Posted) RD: Charlie Haeger[edit]

Oppose for now Huh. Baseball is my wheelhouse but I hadn't seen this story until now. Unfortunately it needs some more sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fully referenced now, but I am putting myself down as an updater. This needs another supporter / posting admin. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 13:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Thomas Jefferson Byrd[edit]

Template:Strike Support Template:Strike Article's been cleaned up enough for RD standards. Gex4pls (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping the entire Works section is unsourced. And IMDB cannot be used as a source for it. Yoninah (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - A step up from what it was though, I guess I'll source a couple of the works. Gex4pls (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All that's sourced correctly is his date of death. I've removed the non-RS filmreference.com. Much better sourcing is needed in all sections, including the Filmography, before this can go on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too stubby, nothing about his death. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article had practically no sources prior to his death and the article is still inadequately sourced. The article is a complete stub and he wasn’t particularly well known before he died. The Image Editor (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 00:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed) Ongoing removal: Wildfires[edit]

Template:Archivetop Template:ITN candidate

Support Coverage has died down considerably. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slight Oppose The fires are still burning (almost 4 million acres have been burnt), so I'd rather keep it up, but the fires aren't as big anymore. But I say wait until they are extinguished. Gex4pls (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed still fires burning, but most of the enormous blazes that were threatening urban centers have been contained. We don't need to keep an ongoing item up for smaller conflagrations that are no longer in the news (it doesn't help that other stories are squeezing it out).--WaltCip-(talk) 15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support according to the guidelines, the target is not getting regular content updates however Oppose according to the criteria used to keep other festering shit in the box for months on end because the "sub articles" are getting updates and here are some links to WP:RS which aren't in the target but who cares [28] [29] [30] [31]. When we decide what criteria are used to judge this OG item you can count the appropriate !vote from me. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Uh... not sure what you’re getting at. Support or oppose or comment? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it really depends. If we're using the "protests criteria" (Belarus, Venezuela, Hong Kong, India) then I oppose because much like those articles, this one is getting minuscule updates but you can see I dragged up some WP:RS to prove it's still "in the news" and highlighted the "sub articles" which are getting updates. It seems, however, that we're following the actual criteria and removed it for being stale. I'm just trying to figure out when the two different criteria for Ongoing items applies. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Destroyeraa, whom I consider to be the authority on these sorts of disaster articles.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ping Thank you very much! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems fair, there haven't been updates for a couple of weeks. — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the article? It was updated yesterday with two new fires. Does anyone actually look at the targets when considering ongoing noms? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I looked at the Timeline of Events section, where as far as I can see the latest date mentioned in September 22. I don't count simple entries in the list, because that doesn't represent a newsworthy update to the article. There may be fires still happening at the moment, but not to an extent that meets our usual Ongoing requirements. As indeed you acknowledge yourself above. — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Coverage has died down, and definitely not close to notability of either Belarus protests or Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (which has consensus to post to OG). Albertaont (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Spencer^T•C 02:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PP Comment – Guardian reported "two new big blazes" Oct. 3 and quoted Alex Hall, director of the Center for Climate Science at UCLA, as saying, "Our fire season is by no means over." – Sca (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fire seasons in California are not extraordinary. This one just stood out as being particularly extreme, but the worst of the blazes have been contained.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cal. fires this year have burned a record 6,250 sq. mi. (16,180 sq. km.). That's extraordinary by any measure. Still burning. - Sca (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Mendocino Complex Fire continued burning well into October and November, as did the Camp Fire. You're going to be posting "still burning" for a while.--WaltCip-(talk) 11:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) White House outbreak of COVID-19[edit]

Oppose – Same basic topic as yesterday's DT-virus nom. – Sca (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather more severe than the Brits’ outbreak, since 10 people have gotten it already, and this thing spreads really quickly. Trump hospitalized, Biden exposed, and it’s getting close to the election. What a mess! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, please change this nom into one using the ITN candidate template. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support one cannot deny the story is in the news. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not exactly the same as the earlier nomination, which was just about Trump; this is about a decent chunk of the US federal government getting it. I might suggest that Template:U propose a blurb for consideration(if possible, using the template provided for blurb nominations above the edit window for this page). 331dot (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the template for the benefit of everyone reading this. TompaDompa (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was skeptical when the news first broke, but given the repurcissions (on the elections, the governance of a superpower) and given how it has spread beyond the president, yeah, no doubt this should be posted. It's major news, with significant impact. It's also the top headline in news outlets outside the US. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E4C9:4335:D6E3:43CF (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no denying it's in the news, but we are not a news ticker and the actual global impact of this is at best unknown. Essentially this is either a covid story or a US election story, and either way we don't give blow by blow accounts if everything that develops in those ongoing sagas. — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We did not post when other world leaders got it, nor do we post due to the speculated importance this has based on the media. We're not going to posted because of the US bias of the world news. --Masem (t) 13:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Now apart from Trump, three U.S. Republican Senators have tested positive since yesterday already. Regarding "peculated importance this has based on the media", we are in fact supposed to look at what the sources say about the importance of various events, rather than speculate about their importance or lack thereof themselves, as all the opposes do above. By the way, not that anyone here will care but the top two pageviews for Oct 2, were for Hope Hicks with 1,213,508 pageviews, and for Donald Trump, with 434,632 pageviews. that was before the wave of positive diagnoses from people near Trump in the White House and the Congress became known. Clearly, the Wikipedia readers have their own idea on whether the topic is 'in the news'. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Nsk. The #1 thing our readers are looking for, and it's (still) front page news around the world. It's undeniably the biggest news story in the world right now. (And it's at least as important as the Stanley Cup, which has been on our front page for a week.) Lev!vich 14:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP is not a newspaper. If readers are looking for this on WP, they are in the wrong place. That's CNN, BBC, or even Wikinews. We have no idea if this is yet an encyclopedia topic of enduring coverage. --Masem (t) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many times are you going to repeat that? Why is the Stanley Cup worthy of putting on our front page but POTUS getting COVID a month before the election is not? Tell me what logic supports this outcome. Stop linking to not news because this is called "IN THE NEWS" so yes it's clearly where we link stories that are in the news. This is in the news. So let's proceed from there: why should this story not be posted while other news stories are? What's the difference between this and the Stanley Cup or Arm-Aze or anything else we post? Lev!vich 14:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because the Stanley Cup is an enduring topic of coverage, having a long history to it. We have zero idea if this COVID outbreak will have any impact on anything at this point, it is all wild speculation by the press who right now are frothing at the mouth with election coverage. Its clear night and day difference. --Masem (t) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You completely lose me when you say that the Stanley Cup is an enduring topic of coverage but POTUS getting COVID a month before an election might not be. I must be on an entirely different planet than you are right now. On my planet, every US presidential election has more enduring coverage, and more impact upon the world, than any Stanley Cup. On my planet, Trump getting COVID has already received far more global coverage than the Stanley Cup could ever hope for. I don't remember Le Monde or Bild putting the Stanley Cup on their front page for multiple days. You can replace "Stanley Cup" with anything on ITNC now or recently and it still holds true: new Kuwaiti Emir, Nag-Kar, and Arm-Abz... none of those have received anything close to the international news coverage that Trump/COVID has already received after less than 48hrs. Also, none of those are anywhere near as much interest to our readers (as determined by page views) as Trump/COVID. If we're not going to list the world's biggest news story on ITN, there's really no point to having an ITN. Le v!v ich 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right now, Trump + other WH members getting COVID is still in the "burst of coverage" level of news. Every reporter is speculating on what will happen - will the next debates be cancelled, is this an October surprise, is this a ploy, etc. etc. As an encyclopedia, we have to look past that to identify if this is really a story to document in depth. There are certainly facts to be documented, but the weight of the story from an encyclopedic view is of yet unknown value, because it has no currently known impact on events. This is NOT#NEWS, NOT#CRYSTALBALL and a whole host of other NOTs at play. While what readers want to see is of some importance we also know they are not the best judgement of what makes an encyclopedia, as otherwise if we went by pageviews and reader interest, we would drop our academic side and focus on celebrity gossip, Pokemon lists, and Game of Throne summaries. Readers coming to WP as if it were a newspaper are unfortunately doing themselves a disservice because that is not our purpose at all. --Masem (t) 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I bet you can't name an example of a story (from any time in history) that was on the front page of every newspaper in the world for two days but did not have lasting encyclopedic significance (or whatever test for inclusion we want to use). Or to put it another way, which of these things is not like the others: celebrity gossip, Pokemon, Game of Thrones, the Stanley Cup, the leader of the free world being hospitalized with the modern day plague a month before his election. Le v!v ich 16:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        You have been arguing on pageviews and what readers want to see, that's what I presented. And of course we have posted stories that have dominated headlines for several days because the enduring importance is immediately obvious, such as after aircraft disasters, major earthquakes and hurricane/typhoon landfalls. I can't think immediately of examples of other cases, nor would be easy to check, but I am certain there are cases of ITNCs that we have not posted where the support !votes have pointed out (appropriately) worldwide frontpage coverage, for at least that day, but which we have not posted due to lack of clear enduring importance. This is how we distinguish what is news and what is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. And of course, there is also the systematic bias factor here that we should not be posting the case of US leaders getting it when we have not at all posted the other major world leaders having gotten and recovered from it. --Masem (t) 16:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think I'll ever understand why routine sporting events like the Stanley Cup and the 2020 London Marathon "is an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia" with "enduring importance" (suitable for the main page) but POTUS getting COVID is "news" (not suitable for the main page). Le v!v ich 16:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Multiple senators and top officials in the White House and the Trump campaign have all been infected, in addition to the president, and the story continues to develop while getting top billing in international RS. I would support ongoing as well. Davey2116 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Amakuru and Masem. If something actually happened rather than press speculation on what might happen if certain things happened, I might support this replacing the Stanley Cup, but this will only push the Arm-Aze conflict instead. ITN isn't known to much consider if what's proposed is more newsworthy+encyclopaedic than what's live, which is not always a good thing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Support per my reasons outlined on the ITN talk page. ~~Template:Noping's rationale of "it's in the news, but we are not a news ticker" is just about the most laughable thing I have ever seen since I've started contributing to ITN.~~--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect (and I mean that, because you're a valuable editor here), you clearly haven't picked up the conventions that we follow here since you "started contributing to ITN" then. If you think one of our guiding principles is laughable. Newspapers print tens or hundreds of stories every day of the year, and sometimes they all print the same thing as each other around the world. This applied to the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, it applied when Boris got COVID, it also applied when Kirk Douglas died. But ITN has always weighed such coverage against enduring encyclopedic value, because that's the reason the section exists and it ties into our first pillar, which is that we are an encyclopedia. And clearly we can't post hundreds of stories a day ourselves. If you think there's something wrong with the "not a news ticker" convention then seek to get it changed on the talk page, rather than ribbing me and numerous other editors for invoking it for the 10,000th time in the last 15 years. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping I concede to your point regarding encyclopedic value, and also concede that in its current state the story is less encyclopedic value and more political intrigue. I admit I was looking at it purely from the prism of newsworthiness. I'll downgrade to a weak support and strike out my admittedly excessive comment against you. I apologize.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ping many thanks for your reasoned response here. I agree that there's a fine line sometimes, and this one may be somewhat borderline, but for me it's still on the wait-and-see side of the line in terms of the lack of knowledge of its impact. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I disagree with (and kind of think is ridiculous) isn't the principle that we are not a news ticker, it's the suggestion that this story is a "news ticker" story. An example of a "news ticker" story would be "Trump and Biden hold first debate". That's the kind of blow-by-blow election coverage that we should not include in ITN. This, on the other hand, is global, front page, breaking news. It can't be dismissed as just a blip in the news cycle. Le v!v ich 15:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can get behind "enduring encyclopedic value" as a criterion, but it's unclear to me what that means. If an article exists on Wikipedia, it has already cleared Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so the community has already decided that the topic is worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. The ITN community seems to have stricter standards, but it is unclear what those standards are and how they are applied, especially when a story that is getting as much coverage as the Trump White House COVID outbreak is deemed not significant enough to post but the outcome of a hockey game is. Qono (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we can all agree that (with the exception of RD) merely having an article is not enough to merit posting an event at ITN. We wouldn't expect to post things like the 2017 EFL Trophy Final. And maybe you're right that the standards aren't very well-defined. As someone keeps noting, we posted a bus plunge story a few weeks ago, mainly because it had a high death toll, but obviously it's global impact was negligible. The White House outbreak, on the other hand, hasn't killed anyone yet and may not do so. If everyone recovers safely within a week, then it becomes a non-story. The same was true when Boris Johnson got COVID - that was front page news around the world too, and he even ended up in intensive care - it looked like his life was genuinely in the balance - but we still didn't post. And rightly so, because ultimately he recovered and life went on as normal. As such, that story ended up as little more than a news-ticker item. The Trump outbreak may likewise be so. Obviusly it escalates into something more then that's when we post. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't support as I haven't time to review quality, but the notion that this story is ephemeral is ludicrous. We're still talking about the Comey letter four years later, and that is substantially less impactful than the sitting POTUS being hospitalized with a deadly virus a month before the election. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Will certainly have *some* historic significance - much more so than the Stanley Cup. Historians are still writing about Grover Cleveland’s mouth growth. Zagalejo^^^ 15:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as its significance is yet uknown; several world leaders have had Covid, and have recovered; if it spreads enough to paralyze the executive branch, or to bring succession into play, then we might consider it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While it is probably the most notable thing happening today, the article itself needs work. Mcrsftdog (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not in terms of the president getting it, but the idea that there's a localized outbreak in, of all places, the center of government (rather than random cities). Hopefully that would be posted in any other country. Kingsif (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish center of government suffered an outbreak on March and I didn't even consider it relevant to be nominated here. While government functions are maintained, it becomes anecdotal, sad, but anecdotal.Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean when the deputy leader of the third largest party tested positive? Wow, indeed I would not have nominated that either. Spot the difference. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:E4C9:4335:D6E3:43CF (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get informed or read better. I didn't said Parliament, I said center of government, where some of Moncloa palace workers got infected, even one died. Also, two minister of the Spanish government and the First Vicepresident tested positive, including several members of the technical committee (one of them was the "Spanish Fauci") and the world didn't stop turning. The world is not America. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Vanamonde has said it all. Notable for the US, but just interesting for non-American people. Not even members of the government other than president Trump are infected, so the impact on the executive branch is little (if the president's health doesn't deteriorate). Other countries have suffered a situtation like this. Senators? Wow, so many others in the world have been tested postitive or have died. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This has been, quite literally, in the news - the top story on most English-language sources and many non-English ones, not just those in America, for over 24 hours. It is noteworthy, the article is decent, and should be posted. As someone else pointed out, if our standards allow a post about the Stanley Cup winner, they should allow a post about this. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ganesha8 This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's not enough happening yet to post; the potential for something big to happen is why news sources are covering it. At least there's an article now. I'm also not sure who the "seven top officials" are supposed to be -- we have a president and 3 senators, beyond that there's advisors like former governor Chris Christie and party apparatchiks like Ronna Romney McDaniel. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent. It is likely that further cases will be reported in the coming days, and there may be broader repercussions - delaying the Supreme Court confirmation hearings, cancelling presidential debates, and the like. There is also a line of questioning in the media about whether the timeline indicates that Trump knew he had the disease before attending certain events, which would expand the scope substantially beyond the Rose Garden event. However, I would wait until any or all of these repercussions manifest in some tangible way. BD2412 T 18:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for a range of reasons. A lack of significance, particularly the diagnoses of anyone other than Mr and Mrs Trump. ITN is not The Top 25. Any speculation about future effects is just that - speculation. If Trump dies - then by all means, blurb an article, but at the moment he's just one of millions of people who have caught the disease. Chrisclear (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling Donald Trump "just one of millions of people who have caught the disease" is a bit disingenuous, no? 174.109.103.123 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it was sincere. When there is an infobox already in place for the pandemic, there is no need to blurb people getting sick from that disease. Chrisclear (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If it leads to a far more important story, then it will be that story that we post. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As all reliable sources point out, Trump was not infected a few days ago, because his illness right now is only seen in people who caught the virus more than about one week ago and whose illness takes a turn for the worse after one week. CNN now reports that Trump got supplemental oxygen on Friday. Trump's condition was kept a secret until after the closure of the Dow Jones and even then downplayed. Trump's condition effectively ends his bid to get reelected. Count Iblis (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly doubt your last sentence. Nixinova T C 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - it's far too early to predict what else will come up between now and the election. Although Biden has recently tested negative, he was exposed to Trump, and it may be that he has also caught it and has just not developed enough of a viral load to trigger a positive response. BD2412 T 23:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many other countries had outbreaks in their governments. T Magierowski (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Abyssal (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support + comment It's all that's on the news right now so it makes sense that it's added. The blurb should also mention that Trump has been hospitalized, though. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No COVID blurbs unless/until it's over especially given the other peoples' opposes. Ultimately a political concern in the US, would support iff (God forbid) Trump or someone similarly high-ranking dies. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Other prominent political figures along with their top officials caught it earlier this year but we didn't post blurbs. I see no reason why this should be an exception.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some of the executive branch now has covid; that's not a big deal in the scheme of things. If Trump and Pence both get this bad then I would support. Nixinova T C 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Regrettably, the outbreak is by no means confined to the Executive branch -- the SCOTUS nom is exposed (if not the superspreader), judiciary Senators tested positive, hundreds of staff exposed, media exposed Feoffer (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having a executive members alongside Trump that tested positive is unexcepted for me because how good condition of presidential ally is, making it IMO notable to posted to ITN. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - people don't take Covid19 seriously, catch Covid19. Not a story. Something very serious happening to the President or Vice-President, that would be a story. Mjroots (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hospitalization is pretty damn serious. Feoffer (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support I see the argument that we should hesitate to post any COVID-19 related blurbs for as long COVID-19 has its own section of the ITN template, but this now extends far beyond Trump himself and is widely reported international news. I don't intend to be Americentric here, I'm actually a little surprised that we didn't post when any individual world leaders were diagnosed with COVID-19, but I think those stories would have been much more notable had it been the case that numerous top officials in the British or Brazilian governments all tested positive at the same time. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did my eyes deceive me or I just saw someone compare Donald J. Trump (or the executive branch of the United States federal government) to some random cop in Madrid? Really? I guess that's a better argument than "American leaders get sick all the time". Howard the Duck (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is easily the top story in the English-speaking world and is front-page news internationally. The article is in good shape and is up-to-date. This exceeds the criteria and so should be posted. Qono (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, notable and widely-covered news both nationally and internationally. Scope of story has widened beyond Trump's diagnosis in a way that meets ITN standards. Morgan695 (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at the present; did not post when other prominent world leaders were infected (e.g. Johnson, Bolsonaro, etc.). If this leads to a transfer of power due to severe illness or other worse consequences, then worth posting at that point. Spencer^T•C 02:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Huge news, the argument about "we didn't post other world leaders" ignores the fact that the United States and its political leader(s) are simply much better known and more influential globally than are those of most other countries. Pretending otherwise is simply denying reality. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is systematic bias that we absolutely fight against in how we select stories and thus a very strong reason not to feature this story. --Masem (t) 03:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The US simply is large and important, for better or worse. Thus stories about its leaders are more relevant to the rest of the world than those about other countries This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Less "relevant" and more "interesting". Media hypes up Trump's covid positive more than other world leaders because this is a more interesting and enter taining situation, and putting Trump in a headline always gets clicks. ITN needs to balance media coverage with media hype, and it's a fine line. Nixinova T C 03:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - And things do, in fact fall on the right side of that line sometimes. For example, an outbreak of COVID at the head of state and government's office! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which has happened in three other major countries before and which we did NOT post because there was no clear sign the leadership was at death's door. --Masem (t) 05:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The significance of this isn't that it might kill him, it's that there's an election next month. How it will influence the election is a matter of speculation; that it has and will continue to influence the election is a matter of fact. Le v!v ich 05:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        It's not about one man -- the outbreak has majorly disrupted the functioning of all three branches of government during an election, jeopardizing continuity of government. This is utterly unprecedented, there are no international comparisons. Feoffer (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is "White house" no longer part of the United States? This is completely bizarre nomination. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - clear USA bias if this were to be posted. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom - If the pandemic disrupted the top echelon of any other government, we'd include it. On top of that, one candidate has been exposed by the other. I get wanting to guard against systemic bias, but this is ridiculous. Imagine if the entire leadership of, say, North Korea, had been exposed to a pandemic, with the twist of the leader being hospitalized after having exposed a rival member of the ruling elite; there is NO WAY that isn't the most newsworthy subject on the planet. Feoffer (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has already happened in Burundi (see 1) and we rightly covered the President's death on ITN. The US is a big country with a vast number of people responsible for its governance. It isn't a question of everyone with any political importance in the US having been incapacitated. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on two points. First is that COVID-19 is already amply covered in the box which is already ITN and should create a very high bar for separate COVID-19 stories being featured. Second, I agree that the nomination is bizarre. Are we surprised that powerful people are also susceptible to a major pandemic? Does anything affecting the President of the US automatically constitute an event of global significance, even if its real significance is WP:CRYSTAL? Would we have posted JFK's repeated medical problems on this basis? And are we simply a newsticker for US political gossip? —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As clearly expressed by Template:U above, COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic and many other world leaders have gotten it and subsequently recovered. The only exception to post this would be if someone unfortunately dies or if it leads to leadership changes (which would be ITNR anyway). Gotitbro (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this should have been a WP:SNOW close anyway, the significance comes from Trump not the White House staff or other related people for it to be considered for ITN and the Trump nom was closed just a day ago. Gotitbro (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SCOTUS nominee & two judiciary Senators during election season is BIG deal. Feoffer (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the SCOTUS nomination process is affected, it does not affect the current function of SCOTUS: They will continue to run wth 8 justices (as they have in the past when down one), and the nomination process is always a process of indeterminable length depending if nominees are rejected or not. That this was trying to be rushed before the election is of partisan politics importance but this is the type of stuff we absolutely avoid using as a reason to post at ITN. --Masem (t) 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes it has generated acres of coverage but until the running of the US government is seriously impacted (transfer of power etc) I don't think it justifies posting. P-K3 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
US government is seriously impacted -- Pres hospitalized, Veep and DemNom exposed, SCOTUS nom exposed. Feoffer (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hospitalized but still running the country. And all those other three tested negative. P-K3 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I don't think "being exposed" really matters unless it requires the person to self-isolate for a long time, and even then, there would need to be a substantial effect from this self-isolation. If the person test's positive it may be a different matter but again, it depends on the effects of this. This has obviously had effects on the presidential election and campaigning, that much was obvious from the moment of the diagnosis. It looks like it may have had an effect on the Supreme Court nomination process, but while that may be something that matters a lot to people in the US, I'm unconvinced it's ITN worthy. After all, we AFAIK didn't and shouldn't have posted about Kavanaugh being accused of misdeeds, and AFAIK didn't and shouldn't have posted about the Senate refusing to consider Gorsuch. Perhaps the combination of Supreme Court plus elections plus other effects is enough, but I'm unconvinced at this time. I do find it funny that for all the fuss over the supreme court nomination, it's now looking likely the biggest effects of that may end up being the effects of the nomination due to this cluster and the fallout e.g. on the election etc rather than that there is another conservative on the Supreme Court for potentially decades to come, even though the latter could still happen. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. It actually just doesn't feel like it's that important, or at least not yet. It's super interesting to those of us who are noting the venal idiocy of a man who turned mask wearing into a political statement and got everyone around him sick because the boss didn't like seeing them wear masks, but unless one or more people actually end up really sick, or a ton more people get diagnosed, meh. —valereee (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The above comment shows just how this all turns into a political food fight which makes us look like we have a political agenda. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archivebottom

October 2[edit]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 2 Template:Cob

(Posted) RD: Bob Gibson[edit]

Support One of the greatest pitchers of all time, RIP. --Rockin 03:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom and Rockin. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support fully referenced. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Added—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Alexander De Croo[edit]

Support Big news for Belgium to have a federal government at last This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality (for now) but Support in principle. The article needs expansion and isn't that great. However, a big development in Belgian politics and who doesn't want to post that? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The king is the head of state. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So Belgium has the king still in charge? I didn't know that, since I thought most countries (except Thailand of course) gave up monarchs and monarchs were only figureheads. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even figurehead monarchs, like Queen Elizabeth, are still head of state, just as figurehead presidents are (the President of Israel). 331dot (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Nancy Pelosi becoming the head of state. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support New heads of state are always important. I prefer the first blurb, as the others lack context on the situation. Gex4pls (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U The PM is not head of state. 331dot (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know they aren't technically the head of state, but you know what I mean. Gex4pls (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows what you mean, yet here we are --LaserLegs (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the resolution of a long political crisis. 331dot (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support also because it was a very long road to the prime-ministership. KittenKlub (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. No question about this nomination. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. We're not posting an article with sentences like "His government is the most feminine Belgium ever has" or "In 2010, like the majority of party chairmen wants De Croo a protocol against the King's power" on the WP:Main page. TompaDompa (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I recognise my poor English but I've added it to WP:GOCE and I've asked an editor who has more experiences in expanding articles in great quality so let's wait for a little bit before he copy-edit it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No-one is keener than I am to get a Belgium-related story onto ITN, but the Alexander De Croo article really needs work before it is possible to post. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know your feeling; it's because he is the new PM after having nearly two years without a formal government that's why I believe it should be included. Also why does it really need work before we can post it? Is it because of the grammar quality? If so per my comment above, there will be someone who will copy-edit it until its grammar reaches a better quality. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ping I'm afraid that we don't post article solely on their contemporary importance and the quality of the article needs to be taken into account too. I'm afraid grammar is only part of the issue; it really needs attention from a native English speaker. Even if this wasn't the case, there are also some very large gaps in content which would need to be resolved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the story isn't about De Croo, it's about the formation of the government. Is there an article about that? Negotiations? Coalitions? etc? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's say it kinda is about him because he is the new PM after those years. But I know what you mean. There is an article called "2019–20 Belgian government formation" but it needs a lot of cite work and it doesn't mention the Brussel and both Walloon Government and the French Comunity Government (I still wonder why we have so many governments in one small country). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. --PJ Geest (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lead needs some cleanup for grammatical errors et all. Gotitbro (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Template:U pointed out, the main article should be electoral vote/about government formation as is precedent for electoral/relate changes. Gotitbro (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. I'm okay with either solution for the target, but the De Croo is not FP ready. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 00:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Asda sale[edit]

Oppose WP:EASTEREGGS in the blurb aside, I don't see how this is significant enough to warrant posting at WP:ITN. TompaDompa (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly this has to be all over the news in the UK, but nope, BBC World News has that red breaking news rolling coverage of Trump for hours now... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per notability. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I'd like a better update (like why the sale) but the worlds largest retailer departing the worlds sixth largest economy is certainly news. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's post this before the Brits wake up! That'll show 'em! GreatCaesarsGhost 01:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. But remember WP:POINT. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Large ish business news, but not important in the grand scheme of things. Gex4pls (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per previous two. Also, basically parochial. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others above. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Routine business news. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Gotitbro (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because the deal is still subject to review from the Competition and Markets Authority which had previously stopped Asda merging with Sainsbury's. While this deal is more likely to be permitted than that horizontal merger, it's still a possibility that it won't happen at all. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to Ongoing) 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict[edit]

Support Excellent nom for ongoing, if it gets put up we should remove the blurb though This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as long as it's clashes and not whining on social media it's fine for OG, though it also suffers from "hyper reporting" and every daily update starts with "according to the Armenian MoD" --LaserLegs (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may or may not be premature, but the idea is to keep the blurb until it gets kicked off, and replace with OG. Albertaont (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Template:Ping Not premature, since Belgium just got a new Prime Minister and that might kick this off. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support when necessary; at least as relevant as the Belarus protests. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Orbitalbuzzsaw. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, when moved off blurb JW 1961 Talk 18:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm surprised it hasn't been added yet. Pretty serious conflict between two countries. Alex of Canada (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a noteworthy current event and one that is escalating. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support when moved off the blurb. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus established to post to OG once it gets kicked off blurb. Marking as ready for when time comes. Albertaont (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support When blurb drops, likely to remain in ongoing for quite sometime. Gotitbro (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – for Ongoing – Unless something big happens. Today's coverage [32] [33] looks like more of the same. – Sca (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to Ongoing now that blurb has aged off. Spencer^T•C 00:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lou Johnson[edit]

Support Decently sourced article JW 1961 Talk 18:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All paragraphs cited, no close paraphrasing seen. Yoninah (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Donald Trump tests positive for COVID-19[edit]

Agree. Most powerful man in the world got infected and soon might be fighting for his life. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SNOW. If he has to resign or dies because of it, absolutely. But just catching it isn't noteworthy. Morgan695 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM on Boris. The POTUS isn't a reliable source for anything. But other sources have started reporting on the tweet. Wasn't he tested before the debate? This must be a prank on Biden, LOL! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have NYT and a bunch of other media outlets on it now, so sourcing concerns are gone. Significance? I'm leaning support, even keeping in mind the need to think globally. I'll wait for some others to weigh in before making it a bolded !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: just to be on the safe side, I have created Draft:Death and state funeral of Donald Trump. It will, of course, be needed at some point. BD2412 T 05:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely no reason for this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And its gone. Seriously? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just preparation for what is eventually inevitable. I don't suppose your qualm is with the proposition that when he does die, there will be a state funeral? BD2412 T 05:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest SNOW close. C'mon...this isn't a Trump ticker. People are getting sick with COVID left and right, especially in our messed up country. Same reasoning should be applied here as with BoJo. Anything beyond him getting sick is pure speculation and violates WP:CRYSTAL ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Won't stop him tweeting. He will no doubt still find a way to "debate", for want of a better term. Not significant unless he gets genuinely ill. HiLo48 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, well, well, age 70+, obesity and COVID-19 means he is in the danger zone. The risk of dying is considerable and the risk of living further, but with a damaged body/brain, is huge. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Obviously it's a much different scenario should the president need to cede his executive authority (whether temporarily or otherwise). rawmustard (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Not sufficiently significant events for me, except if the president has died. 180.241.205.155 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- EU and US stocks dropped immediately after the twit at Asian stock markets. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking merely contracting the disease isn't ITN-worthy, but if he needs to step aside temporarily because of it, then that would be. Mz7 (talk) 06:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose I'm actually unconvinced even the president temporary stepping down merits ITN although I appreciate unlike for surgery there is no expected recovery timeline so it can get complicated since temporary stepping down could mean a long time away which I'm more willing to accept may belong on ITN yet we probably have no way of knowing and there may be no real specific update that means this . Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose really?? Snow close. Alsoriano97 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want to urge another look at this. I understand the argument being made that U.S. editors and media as a whole are overreacting to this announcement in terms of its global newsworthiness. However, you all are underestimating how globally newsworthy it actually is. Here's a murderer's row of international news sites that have this at or near the top of their page: Sydney Morning Herald, Hindustan Times, Al Jazeera, Korea Herald, Japan Times, Der Spiegel, France 24, NZ Herald... Make no mistake. This is a big deal. As morbid as the proposition seems, the U.S. is potentially a few steps away from a significant regime change, and that is what the world is reacting to.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Boris Johnson going into intensive care and an interim government being formed in the UK wasn't posted, this won't fly unless Trump dies. Kingsif (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't equitable. The amount of international news coverage is significantly higher for this story compared to that of Boris Johnson's.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen's right, there's no way that flood of opposes is going to be overcome unless something happens like him becoming ill enough to have to hand over to Pence. The announcement by itself is never going to get consensus to post.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a way, and it wasn't a flood. Those opposes were based on personal opinions and they happened before substantive coverage from the media around the world came in. If people actually bother to take a look at what the news sources say around this story and its impact, they might change their minds. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WaltCip. The thread was closed too quickly, in less than 1.5 hours, of course while the U.S. editors were asleep. Perhaps a revenge for the RBG story being posted so fast? Anyway, the story is definitely the number one story for most news outlets around the world today, and one can easily predict which Wikipedia page will have the most number of hits today, by far. As NYT byword headline says: The news of an American president contracting a potentially lethal virus carried global repercussions beyond that of any other world leader. With all due respect to Boris Johnson, a U.S. President is still way more important on the world stage, especially with the election being just a month away. Nsk92 (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above discussion, I don't feel it should be reopened unless circumstances significantly change. There is no support at all in the discussion. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it would have hurt nothing to leave this open, sad it's been shut down so quickly. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still, even with the hospitalisation. Johnson got the same, but no ITN, and I think that's the right decision. If it escalates from here then yes, I would support. Nixinova T C 22:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2020 October 1 Template:Cob

October 1[edit]

(Closed) RD: Murray Schisgal[edit]

Oppose 200 words of prose isn't sufficient depth of coverage of the subject. Spencer^T•C 13:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stale Step hen 00:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Zef Eisenberg[edit]